Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald Leaving TSBD?


Recommended Posts

On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 10:32 PM, Michael Clark said:   I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO DELETE A REPLY ONCE STARTED.   I CANNOT CANCEL THE REPLY, AND I CANNOT START A NEW REPLY UNTIL AN INCORRETLY STARTED REPLY IS SOMEHOW COMPLETED.   WHAT A PAIN.
Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

30 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Just as a point of clarification!

Fritz doesn't claim that LHO said he was on the steps at the time...

...Whether Oswald actually said it OR it's just Fritz claiming that Oswald said it... either way at no point is it said that Oswald was on the front steps at the time of the shooting. (The only time he mentioned being on the front steps (with Shelley) was as he was leaving - after the 2nd floor encounter with Baker/Truly)...

Alistair,

There is a flaw in your logic.  If Fritz merely claimed that Oswald said it -- then we have no idea what the real truth was -- we need a photograph or some secondary confirmation.   LHO never mentioned anything about his location to anybody -- unless we believe Captain Will Fritz -- which I don't.

The idea that Oswald came up to get a Coke, and then saw Baker-Truly, and then walked out the front door -- comes 100% from the mind of Captain Will Fritz and his fellow conspirators, from statements they invented WEEKS after LHO was murdered in their custody.   Why does anybody believe anything that Will Fritz said about LHO, without secondary confirmation?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

...Wait, wait, wait, WHAT? Did I read that right, Paul, are you saying that because Frazier believed Oswald when Oswald said it was curtain rods that it was because Frazier wanted to start a homosexual relationship with him? That's a non-sequitur if ever I saw one. lol And wait, wait, wait, WHAT? You find it odd that Frazier would, on meeting Oswald, want to make friends with him! You find it odd that Frazier agrees to give Oswald, who lives nearby, a lift home on a Friday after work and back in on a Monday morning!

Even if Frazier was gay (and nothing wrong with that) it doesn't follow that that explains all his behaviour with regard to LHO, unless you are saying that a gay man can't be friends with another male without wanting to be bum buddies start a homosexual relationship with him... (and I really hope you aren't saying that...)

Regards

P.S. As a slight aside, on the point of the 'package' Oswald had... just as a point of clarification (moreso for anyone else reading), Oswald didn't just randomly turn up at Frazier's unannounced on Friday morning...

Anyroads,

Frazier may well have been gay, but that really is besides the point. Believing someone when they lie to you, wanting to be friends, and giving them lifts somewhere does not a gay person make - if it did, it would be the death knoll for the entire human race.

Alistair,

It's not a non-sequitur -- if Wesley Buell Frazier was gay (as his WC testimony suggests strongly) then he would accommodate LHO in anything and everything -- it would not matter, because, as in the eyes of a lover, LHO could "do no wrong."  

My theory might be mistaken, Alistair, but it certainly isn't a non-sequitur.  It's eminently plausible.

I don't find it odd that Frazier would want to make friends with Oswald the first day he saw him -- but it was instant, and Frazier instantly accommodated LHO's request for free rides to work and free rides back home on his schedule -- on the very first day they met. 

The language of Frazier is way too accommodating to be ordinary, for one thing, but his language in his WC testimony is blatant -- "some guys mess around in the bathroom at quitting time"  What does that have to do with anything that the WC attorney asked him?  Nothing.  It was just a nervous confession.

Now -- I'm not saying anything for or against being gay here: I'm only making an objective observation for history -- that if (and only if) Wesley Frazier was gay, then that would explain his continual accommodation of everything LHO requested and told him.  

My original theory here is based on Frazier's WC testimony.   I notice you didn't comment on that particular extract of his testimony.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul, 

I have taken a few liberties in recent days, with things I have claimed that are possible. I'll avoid that in the future. I read-up on Frazier's life after Dealy Plaza. I recall a fairly extensive military career, but I don't recall marriages or children. I'll have to look into that again.

I don't find a young guy like that, befriending a coworker and neighbor odd. Offering a ride in that situation in 1963, with those living and working conditions, struggling, does not seem odd. And Oswald would have seemed to be an interesting fellow with his military and Russian experiences, and who knows what else he may have shared with Frazier.

There definitely seems to be a lot of assertions of gayness, between New Orleans, The Carousel and now the TSBD. It's so odd. And none (?) of these notions are more than suggestions. 

On a possibly ancillary note, I closely read Ruby's first WC interview today, and I am in the middle of the later one. His warning of an apocalyptic doomsday, particularly for Jews, is striking. It's a damn shame that they did not get him to Washington to hear him out. It Is speculation, but it sounds like he would have implicated Walker, The JBS and the DPD.

I find it bizarre that they just let him ramble on and skate areound questions about what he did between, say, midnight and dawn on the 23rd. It is precisely before he says that he picked up Senator that he got sketchy with his testimony. 

Officer Harry Olson drives to the garage at the Carousel, at midnight, with Kathy Kay. He sees Ruby there. A couple hours later Ruby sees Kathy Kay, fooling with officer Carlson, in a car.

Sombody has their story wrong, and something is going on at the Carousel and the garage. I have not seen Ruby state that he went to a diner with Senator in the middle of the night. Perhaps I'll find it after the lie detector test. 

I have to see if Kathy Kay was interviewed by the WC.

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

There is a flaw in your logic.  If Fritz merely claimed that Oswald said it -- then we have no idea what the real truth was -- we need a photograph.   LHO never mentioned anything to anybody -- unless we believe Captain Will Fritz -- which I don't.

The idea that Oswald came down to get a Coke, and then walked out the front door -- comes 100% from the mind of Captain Will Fritz and his fellow conspirators, from statements they invented WEEKS after LHO was murdered in their custody.   Why does anybody believe anything that Will Fritz said about LHO, without secondary confirmation?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo


Look at it from a different angle...

Let's first assume you are right and that everything Fritz says Oswald said isn't actually what Oswald said! First of all that on a base level makes no sense, after all, the best lies are based on truth, so even if Fritz is making some stuff up then he probably won't be making it all up. Anyway, if Fritz was making it up presumably he would do so for a reason and that reason would be to implicate Oswald in the crime... so why isn't Fritz claiming that Oswald came down from the 6th floor then as that would implicate him totally (and it's not like Oswald could deny he said that)... heck, Fritz could have said that Oswald, in a moment of weakness, and whilst alone with him, admitted he was the shooter (and it's not like Oswald could deny he said that)... also, if Fritz was making it up to implicate Oswald how come he got the story 'mixed up'? At one point he has Oswald saying he was on the first floor and went up to the 2nd floor, at another point he has him coming down to the second floor...

As for secondary confirmation... well there is Baker and Truly who back up the 2nd floor encounter, there is also the fact that no one recalls seeing Oswald on the steps at the time of the shots, but how's this for 'secondary confirmation' Oswald himself saying that at the time of the shots he was 'in the building'.


Oswald denies he shot the president, but there is an ideal situation for him to say, when asked where he was at the time, that he was outside of the building or that he was on the steps at the time, but no he says he was in the building. Sure, some people say 'in the building' could refer to on the steps and they are not wrong to think  that, but, well, let's put it this way...

... if you were pulled in for a crime you were innocent of and, in front of a camera, you were asked where you were at the time, I bet you would make sure you would say where you were and be pretty exact with it. If Oswald was on the steps at the time of the shots, I feel he would have said exactly that.

Let me ask you this then... where does the thought that Oswald was on the steps at the time of the shooting come from then?

It comes really from two places 1. that Prayer Man looks like it might be him and 2. Oswald said it under interrogation. Wait a minute though, not only did Oswald say no such thing during the interrogation (irrespective of how accurate Fritz's reporting of it was), but if anything Fritz claims that Oswald said is to be discounted because Fritz made it up, then it can't be used to show that Oswald was on the steps at the time of the shooting. (can't use something as evidence that you have discounted as being evidence. lol) So what is left then? Just a (relatively) poor quality image/clip of Prayer Man who looks like it might be him... but wait no one else on the steps says that Oswald was there.

So really, let's try and balance this a bit...

things that point to Oswald not being on the steps at the time of the shots... no one on the steps (Frazier, Molina, Shelley, Williams, Lovelady, etc etc) admitted to seeing him there, neither did Baker/Truly admit to seeing him there, in fact no one has admitted to seeing him there period, and according to Fritz, Oswald once said he was on the first floor at the time and another time that he was on an upper floor, Oswald unequivocally, on camera, said he was in the building at the time.

things that point to Oswald being on the steps at the time of the shots... an image/clip that shows an as yet unidentified man in the shadows of the doorway that, granted, looks like it might be Oswald.

Regards

P.S. I'm just being your opponent here and not your enemy. ;)
P.P.S just about to respond to your next comment (and I'm looking forward to it. lol)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald was getting peppered with questions. I think his answer and the question are vague enough to discount it as not definitive as where he exactly was. Sure, he, sort of, had an opportunity to say that he was on the steps but he has larger fish to fry. The fact that this clip is one of few that survive can speak to the possibility that it's survival was selective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

It's not a non-sequitur -- if Wesley Buell Frazier was gay (as his WC testimony suggests strongly) then he would accommodate LHO in anything and everything -- it would not matter, because, as in the eyes of a lover, LHO could "do no wrong."  

My theory might be mistaken, Alistair, but it certainly isn't a non-sequitur.  It's eminently plausible.

Being plausible or not is totally besides the point though. And as I already said, maybe Frazier was gay, but being gay is also besides the point.

Suggesting that because Frazier 'believed Oswald about the curtain rods a lie' and 'wanted to be friends with him from day one' and 'offered him lifts' means that Frazier wanted to start a homosexual relationship with Oswald is very much a non-sequitur because, by definition, it does not follow. It may be a 'subtle' example of a non-sequitur but that is what it is!

If Frazier was a straight guy couldn't he do all that stuff just because he was a nice guy?

And even if Frazier was gay, does that mean he can't be nice to another man without it being because he wants to be bum buddies start a homosexual relationship with him?

It makes no sense...

But yeah, your thought of Frazier being gay is certainly plausible, your thought of him 'fancying' Oswald might also be just as plausible... doesn't make it true though, and especially not with the reasons you have given for it to be honest.

Anyway,

46 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I don't find it odd that Frazier would want to make friends with Oswald the first day he saw him -- but it was instant, and Frazier instantly accommodated LHO's request for free rides to work and free rides back home on his schedule -- on the very first day they met. 

You don't find it odd that he would want to make friends the first day, but you do find it odd at how instant it was... what expectations do you have for when it wouldn't be odd then? How long after meeting him would it be 'normal' for it to happen? After 10 minutes, an hour, a few hours, a couple of days, a couple of weeks?...

... Let's imagine a conversation that Frazier may have had with Oswald on first meeting.

Frazier: Hi I'm Buell
Oswald: I'm Lee
Frazier: Welcome to the company
Oswald: Thanks
Frazier: Do you have to travel far to get here.
Oswald: Nah I've got a place 10 minutes on the bus from here.
Frazier: Cool
Oswald: but at weekends I stay with the wive in Irving
Frazier: Oh, where abouts?
Oswald: West Irving Boulevard
Frazier: That's right near me...
Oswald: Cool
Frazier: If you're ever needing a lift from there just give me a shout
Oswald: Nice one.

That could just be Frazier being nice, no skin off his teeth to give a lift once or twice a week to someone going to pretty much where he was going anyway, and, awww, looks like he might have a new buddy... nowt wrong with that.

 

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

The language of Frazier is way too accommodating to be ordinary, for one thing, but his language in his WC testimony is blatant -- "some guys mess around in the bathroom at quitting time"  What does that have to do with anything that the WC attorney asked him?  Nothing.  It was just a nervous confession.
 

You might thinkhis language is way too 'accommodating' to be 'ordinary', but last time I checked there really is nothing 'ordinary' about how language is used, different people use it differently and it varies not just in place to place but person to person - some people are more literal than others, some are more figurative than others, some use language that is 'high-faluting', some are more 'mono-syllabic', some can use idioms a lot, others avoid cliches like the plague. If someone thinks that the language that a person uses is 'way too accommodating to be ordinary' then all it really means is that they think it is 'way too accommodating to be ordinary', based on what they think 'ordinary language' means - over and above that it's pretty meaningless.

As for the language being 'blatant'... well first I hope you have more than the example of 'some guys mess around...' to back that up?

To start with though, are you saying that 'some guys mess around in the bathroom at quitting time' is a blatant reference to homosexual shenanigans? Cause that's what it seems like you are saying...

... don't get me wrong the phrase 'mess around' could have sexual connotations, in much the same way 'fool around' could have sexual connotations, and indeed 'play around' could have sexual connotations,  but that isn't the only meaning any of them have...

...'play around', 'mess around', 'fool around', 'kid around' 'muck around' all could just mean 'to not be serious about/with something'.

Two kids sitting in a sandbox throwing sand at each other could be said to be 'messing around' (or said to be any of the other ones too)...

... I think that makes that point quite clear.

What does Frazier saying 'some guys mess around...' have to do with anything that the WC attorney asked him? You have answered, 'nothing' and put it down to being just a 'nervous confession'... 'a nervous confession' to what? that after work a few of the guys go to the bathroom for a sausage feast?  I will need to go and see what it says before I can answer your question...

Here is the relevant passage from Frazier's WC testimony, on the subject of Frazier first meeting Oswald. As a point of interest, Frazier had only been working there 4 or 5 weeks at this point...

Quote

Mr. BALL - Did Shelly introduce you to him or did you go up and shake hands with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't. I remember, I knew, you know that he was going to be coming to work so naturally I hadn't been there very long, you know, living in Dallas and so I wanted to make friends with everybody I could, because you know yourself friendship is something you can't buy with money and you always need friends, so I went up and introduced and he told me his name was Lee and I said "We are glad to have you."
We got talking back and forth and he come to find out I knew his wife was staying there at the time with this other woman and so I thought he would go out there and I said, "Are you going to be going home this afternoon?"
And he told me then, he told me that he didn't have a car, you know, and so I told him. I said, "Well, I live out there in Irving,"- I found out he lived out there and so I said, "Any time you want to go just let me know."
So I thought he would go home every day like most men do but he told me no, that he wouldn't go home every day and then he asked me could he ride home say like Friday afternoon on weekends and come back on Monday morning and I told him that would be just fine with me.
I told him if he wanted a ride any other time just let me know before I go off and leave him because when it comes to quitting time some of these guys, you know, some of them mess around the bathroom and some of them quit early and some of them like that and some leave at different times than others.
But I said from talking to him then, I say, he just wanted to ride home on weekends with me and I said that was fine.

(bolded for emphasis)

*Wow, I am surprised genuinely at how close that resembles my imagined conversation further up this post which I wrote before reading that passage. ;)

Anyway, I think most of that is very clear, the only bit that may not be a bit clear is the last part from 'I told him if he wanted a ride any other time...' onwards. What Frazier is trying to say (but not putting across in the best way) is quite simple in my opinion; what he is saying is that he told Oswald that if he wanted a lift on any other day make sure to say so as early as possible because if he doesn't, and he leaves it till the end of the day, there is a chance that he wouldn't be able to get a lift because, with not everyone leaving at the same time, and some leaving earlier, and some people 'messing about' before leaving, they may miss each other - but with the lift arranged earlier they both know to wait for each other.

In simple terms, what Frazier is saying is,

"if you want a lift home any other day let me know in advance just in case we miss each other later on." the rest is just a poorly worded attempt to give reasons as to how they might miss each other.

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Now -- I'm not saying anything for or against being gay here: I'm only making an objective observation for history -- that if (and only if) Wesley Frazier was gay, then that would explain his continual accommodation of everything LHO requested and told him. 

An objective observation for history? WIth the utmost of respect, I reckon it's more like the proverbial 'mountains out of molehills'... also if Frazier was gay then that does NOT explain his 'continual accommodation of everything LHO requested and told him', unless you are saying that a gay man can't be a friend to another man without wanting to be bum buddies start a homosexual relationship with him. Frazier in his testimony is quite clear that he wanted to make friends with anybody he could (as he was new to the area and new to that job) - that has nothing to do with him being gay or not!

As I said earlier,  yeah, your thought of Frazier being gay is certainly plausible, your thought of him 'fancying' Oswald might also be just as plausible... doesn't make it true though, and especially not with the reasons you have given for it.

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

My original theory here is based on Frazier's WC testimony.   I notice you didn't comment on that particular extract of his testimony.
 

Your right Paul I hadn't commented on that particular extract of his testimony, but I have now (and I hope it makes sense). I'm glad you 'invited' me to make comment on that, because I would like to invite you to make comment on this part of his testimony...

Quote

And I said, "Sure. You know, like I told you, you can go home with me any time you want to, like I say anytime you want to go see your wife that is all right with me."

How do you explain Frazier being so keen for Oswald to go home to see his wife? I mean if Frazier was pining for Oswald so much surely he would want him to spend less time with his wife and not encouraging him to go to her. Seriously though, I can think of a couple of things, so I am genuinely interested to see how you explain that. ;)

Regards

P.S. I'm just being your opponent here and not your enemy. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to pick up on a couple of things Michael said :)

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

There definitely seems to be a lot of assertions of gayness, between New Orleans, The Carousel and now the TSBD. It's so odd. And none (?) of these notions are more than suggestions. 

In furtherance on that point...

I'm not really knowledgable on the timeline in regards to US law about 'gayness', but here in the UK it was only as recently as 1967 that it became legal to have a homosexual tryst (with the caveat that it was done in a private residence between two consenting parties both aged over 21) in England (it was still illegal in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). Here in Scotland it wasn't made legal (with the same caveats) until 1980! In 1994 a vote was put in Government to lower the legal age of sex between gay males to 16, but it was defeated and instead it was lowered to 18 (there was no minimum age for lesbians), it was lowered to 16 in 2001.

*There was an old joke that went something like this...

"once upon a time it was illegal to be gay, then they made it legal for 21 year olds, then for 18 year olds, and then for 16 year olds - I think I will emmigrate before they make it compulsory. lol ;)

I digress.

Anyway, I think at some point in the past there would have been a certain 'fear' against homosexuals, like, when it was illegal it had to be kept hidden and the being hidden made some people associate it with being 'seedy' and 'immoral' etc (fortunately, times have changed - to each their own I say, consenting adults can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned). Take Garrison for example, he very much tried to tie the plot together as being a 'homosexual' plot - I never really understood that - even if the plot was true I don't really see what difference it would make if all the plotters were gay or not. lol

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

Oswald was getting peppered with questions. I think his answer and the question are vague enough to discount it as not definitive as where he exactly was. Sure, he, sort of, had an opportunity to say that he was on the steps but he has larger fish to fry. The fact that this clip is one of few that survive can speak to the possibility that it's survival was selective.

Yes and no... I know what you mean about the question and answer being vague enough to discount it as not being definitive as where he exactly was, I do get that. Personally though, if it was me, and I had been on the steps at the time of the shooting I would be screaming that from the rooftops at every opportunity I got...

That 'I am just a patsy' part was one of the main things (and if not really the first thing) that got the whole 'conspiracy' stuff going (imo), doesn't its (the clip) survival thus point away from a conspiracy even though its contents point towards a conspiracy. I mean because his words point to it being a conspiracy and the 'powers that be' want to cover up the conspiracy would they not want to destroy something that points to a conspiracy. I can't quite get my head around that. lol

Another thing I can't quite get my head around is the thought of would a patsy know they were a patsy. lol

*My head works in strange ways though.

Peace :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Being plausible or not is totally besides the point though. And as I already said, maybe Frazier was gay, but being gay is also besides the point. 

... Let's imagine a conversation that Frazier may have had with Oswald on first meeting.

Frazier: Hi I'm Buell
Oswald: I'm Lee
Frazier: Welcome to the company
Oswald: Thanks
Frazier: Do you have to travel far to get here.
Oswald: Nah I've got a place 10 minutes on the bus from here.
Frazier: Cool
Oswald: but at weekends I stay with the wive in Irving
Frazier: Oh, where abouts?
Oswald: West Irving Boulevard
Frazier: That's right near me...
Oswald: Cool
Frazier: If you're ever needing a lift from there just give me a shout
Oswald: Nice one.

That could just be Frazier being nice, no skin off his teeth to give a lift once or twice a week to someone going to pretty much where he was going anyway, and, awww, looks like he might have a new buddy... nowt wrong with that.

As I said earlier,  yeah, your thought of Frazier being gay is certainly plausible, your thought of him 'fancying' Oswald might also be just as plausible... doesn't make it true though, and especially not with the reasons you have given for it....

Alistair,

Being gay is not beside the point in my theory here -- it is the key point.  With my theory I am able to explain why Wesley Buell Frazier didn't challenge LHO when LHO put a strange package in the back seat of Frazier's car on 11/22/1963 before they went to work.   Frazier asked, "What's in the package, Lee?"  LHO replied, "Curtain rods."   Frazier said, "OK."   Then they drove away.  (I didn't make up that dialogue -- it's in sworn WC testimony.)

Michael Clark has challenged that scenario -- it doesn't sound normal to him, and I have to agree -- UNLESS Frazier was gay.  If Frazier was secretly in love with LHO, then it makes perfect sense, without any additional conspiracy theory.   (Occam's Razor applies here -- the simplest answer is the correct one.)

Now, what you've done, Alistair, is you've completely invented a dialogue in your imagination.   Rather than do that, I ask you to stick to Frazier's testimony -- not cherry picking the parts that agree with your theory -- but focusing intently on the part that I posted -- which I suggest you have not yet fully addressed.  

Why bring up the bathroom in a courtroom, in a context when the attorney only asked about the first time you met LHO?  Frazier was not testifying that he first met LHO in the bathroom.   So, why bring it up at all?  That's the question.

Now -- I'm not saying LHO was gay.  I don't believe he was.  I believe that Frazier was letting his inner emotions show -- and not describing any actual events.   I'm saying that Frazier may be the gay party here -- not LHO.

I appreciate your challenge and your interest in my Frazier theory here -- because I think Michael's challenge needs to be answered, and I think this is the simplest and most obvious answer, given Frazier's actual WC testimony, which I quoted.

As for the evolution of gay politics, it completely took me by surprise in the 1980's in the USA, because I was oblivious to the reality of a gay underground in the USA that went back into the 1800's.  The power of gay politics in the USA is undeniable today -- when even the Supreme Court has supported them.  Yet, for all that, the fact remains that Europe and the UK have always been more advanced than the USA with regard to gay politics.  So, I'm not making any political points here -- I'm only trying to be objective in the interest of history.

Now, maybe I'm mistaken -- I have no idea about Frazier's life except that he was in a movie about JFK, and gave several interviews. If Frazier was married and had children, then I will back off my theory with an apology to his family, if necessary.   I certainly mean no offense to anybody; I'm just searching for the truth like most everybody else here.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo  

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Look at it from a different angle...

Let's first assume you are right and that everything Fritz says Oswald said isn't actually what Oswald said! First of all that on a base level makes no sense, after all, the best lies are based on truth, so even if Fritz is making some stuff up then he probably won't be making it all up. Anyway, if Fritz was making it up presumably he would do so for a reason and that reason would be to implicate Oswald in the crime... so why isn't Fritz claiming that Oswald came down from the 6th floor then as that would implicate him totally (and it's not like Oswald could deny he said that)... heck, Fritz could have said that Oswald, in a moment of weakness, and whilst alone with him, admitted he was the shooter (and it's not like Oswald could deny he said that)... also, if Fritz was making it up to implicate Oswald how come he got the story 'mixed up'? At one point he has Oswald saying he was on the first floor and went up to the 2nd floor, at another point he has him coming down to the second floor...

As for secondary confirmation... well there is Baker and Truly who back up the 2nd floor encounter, there is also the fact that no one recalls seeing Oswald on the steps at the time of the shots, but how's this for 'secondary confirmation' Oswald himself saying that at the time of the shots he was 'in the building'.

Oswald denies he shot the president, but there is an ideal situation for him to say, when asked where he was at the time, that he was outside of the building or that he was on the steps at the time, but no he says he was in the building. Sure, some people say 'in the building' could refer to on the steps and they are not wrong to think  that, but, well, let's put it this way...

... if you were pulled in for a crime you were innocent of and, in front of a camera, you were asked where you were at the time, I bet you would make sure you would say where you were and be pretty exact with it. If Oswald was on the steps at the time of the shots, I feel he would have said exactly that.

Let me ask you this then... where does the thought that Oswald was on the steps at the time of the shooting come from then?

It comes really from two places 1. that Prayer Man looks like it might be him and 2. Oswald said it under interrogation. Wait a minute though, not only did Oswald say no such thing during the interrogation (irrespective of how accurate Fritz's reporting of it was), but if anything Fritz claims that Oswald said is to be discounted because Fritz made it up, then it can't be used to show that Oswald was on the steps at the time of the shooting. (can't use something as evidence that you have discounted as being evidence. lol) So what is left then? Just a (relatively) poor quality image/clip of Prayer Man who looks like it might be him... but wait no one else on the steps says that Oswald was there.

So really, let's try and balance this a bit...

things that point to Oswald not being on the steps at the time of the shots... no one on the steps (Frazier, Molina, Shelley, Williams, Lovelady, etc etc) admitted to seeing him there, neither did Baker/Truly admit to seeing him there, in fact no one has admitted to seeing him there period, and according to Fritz, Oswald once said he was on the first floor at the time and another time that he was on an upper floor, Oswald unequivocally, on camera, said he was in the building at the time.

things that point to Oswald being on the steps at the time of the shots... an image/clip that shows an as yet unidentified man in the shadows of the doorway that, granted, looks like it might be Oswald.

Regards

Alistair,

Let's take it from your angle a bit slower.

You say you're willing to consider that I'm right and that "everything Fritz claimed that Oswald said isn't actually what Oswald said" -- but then you immediately conclude it "makes no sense."  That's moving too fast. 

We do agree that the best lies are based on the truth -- in fact the best lies are 99% truth.  We do agree that Fritz was not making up all of that dialogue.  But I know for a fact that he didn't make it all up, because I know exactly where he got most of it -- FROM THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF OTHER WITNESSES.

That's how Fritz could be sure that the WC would not challenge him on any of it.

Where did Fritz get his hands on all this TESTIMONY?  There was one main source: from DPD Affidavits in the hundreds.

Remember that Will Fritz did not supply his "written records" of what LHO said until WEEKS after LHO was murdered in his custody.  That was plenty of time to scour all the testimony.  Also, the FBI could tell Fritz and his team which of those Affidavit witnesses would also be called to testify for the WC.

Based on this early information, DPD Captain Will Fritz, Dallas FBI agent James Hosty, Dallas SS agent Forrest Sorells, Dallas Postmaster Harry Holmes and their co-conspirators had plenty of time to FAKE the last words of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The strong evidence of my theory is shown in the WC testimony of Postmaster Harry Holmes, who was with Captain Will Fritz in the final hour of LHO's life.  In his testimony, which agrees fully with Will Fritz's testimony, Holmes goes off script to claim that LHO told them every single detail about his trip to Mexico City.  The facts were accurate -- but even the WC attorney did not believe that Holmes got that data directly from LHO.  And only Holmes "remembered" that part of LHO's "record."

So, we agree, Alistair, that Captain Will Fritz did not invent LHO's "record" from a whole cloth.  He picked it out of bits of TRUTH, piece by piece. 

That is why Fritz's testimony does not implicate Oswald further in the JFK assassination -- because no other witnesses had supplied such data.  If Will Fritz had been so bold as to say that LHO had confessed to him (as you suggest he could have) then I have no doubt that the WC and the world press would have rained down such scrutiny upon him that no normal person could ever have tolerated it.  Will Fritz knew better than that.

As Walt Brown said -- the DPD cops were not blundering idiots -- they only pretended to be that way -- crazy like a fox.  In fact, said Brown, the DPD cops and deputies cooperated brilliantly according to a carefully laid plain to frame LHO for their crime.

You bring up Baker-Truly -- and this data was already in the DPD Affidavits.  No wonder LHO allegedly confessed it.

So, as for secondary confirmation -- there is some confirmation for this sentence of Fritz, and some for that sentence of Fritz -- but when it comes to the words that LHO said directly to Fritz that was outside the DPD Affidavits in hand, Fritz was ready to hem and haw.

Actually -- the contradictions we find in Will Fritz' testimony comes from his attempt to piece together a scenario from DPD Affidavits -- and the time sequence never quite adds up.  It's not easy to do, even with help and weeks to do it.  So Will Fritz was also quick to insert, "I'm not really sure, I really don't remember, I didn't keep very many notes at the time, we were so busy."

As for LHO not telling the press exactly what room he was in at what time -- that was the least of his omissions.  He didn't realize it but he also had to explain how the DPD cops got ahold of his rifle.

LHO had the opportunity to tell the world press who might have been making him a "Patsy," and who he thought the conspirators really were.  But he didn't -- partly because the DPD cops whisked him away, and partly because (possibly) LHO still believed that these were his friends and that they would eventually come and "give him legal assistance."  After all, he had been calling for attorney John Abt in New York City -- according to plan (IMHO).

PRAYER MAN:

In my theory so far, Prayer Man still MIGHT be Oswald, only given two conditions: (1) that Roy Truly didn't recognize Oswald standing on the steps as he followed Officer Baker up the TSBD steps; and (2) that Oswald had a chance to get to the 2nd floor of the TSBD before Baker-Truly.

If we can allow those two conditions, then yes, Prayer Man might be Oswald.

As for the fact that no other witnesses saw Oswald on the steps before Truly-Baker ran inside -- that might be explained by the fact that within 30 seconds of the shooting, Shelly-Lovelady were already on the Grassy Knoll (that little old island) and Frazier, Molina and Williams, were outside of the TSBD, watching the incredible commotion at the Grassy Knoll.   After all -- they don't appear in the Prayer Man footage.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

Being gay is not beside the point in my theory here -- it is the key point.  With my theory I am able to explain why Wesley Buell Frazier didn't challenge LHO when LHO put a strange package in the back seat of Frazier's car on 11/22/1963 before they went to work.   Frazier asked, "What's in the package, Lee?"  LHO replied, "Curtain rods."   Frazier said, "OK."   Then they drove away.  (I didn't make up that dialogue -- it's in sworn WC testimony.)

To be fair, Paul, you kind of are making up that dialogue, because it never happened on 11/22/1963 in the morning when Oswald put the package into Frazier's car. I've been through this a couple of times previously but you may have missed it. The reason why Frazier, that morning, didn't question it is because he knew from the conversation he had with Oswald the day before. That is what is in his sworn WC testimony. And here it is,

Quote

Now, there was the one date that Oswald came to you and asked you to drive him back to Irving, it was not a Friday, was it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it wasn't.
Mr. BALL - It was on a Thursday.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - Was that the 21st of November?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Well, tell us about that.
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, we were standing like I said at the four-headed table about half as large as this, not, quite half as large, but anyway I was standing there getting the orders in and he said, "Could I ride home with you this afternoon?"
And I said, "Sure. You know, like I told you, you can go home with me any time you want to, like I say anytime you want to go see your wife that is all right with me."
So automatically I knew it wasn't Friday, I come to think it wasn't Friday and I said, "Why are you going home today?"
And he says, "I am going home to get some curtain rods." He said, "You know, put in an apartment."
He wanted to hang up some curtains and I said, "Very well." And I never thought more about it and I had some invoices in my hands for some orders and I walked on off and started filling the orders.

So when you say that with your theory you are able to explain why Frazier didn't challenge Oswald when he put a 'strange' package in the back seat of Frazier's car on 11/22/1963 before they went to work, well 1. you don't need a theory to explain it as it has already been explained, he didn't challenge Oswald that morning because he knew the day before and 2. even if it had been that morning and Oswald blindly turned up Frazier would have asked what it was and if Oswald said 'curtain rods' why wouldn't he just have accepted that reason on face value... your theory seems to be predicated on Frazier knowing it was a rifle, or at least that it wasn't curtain rods, and letting it slide because he fancied Oswald - that dog don't hunt!

28 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael Clark has challenged that scenario -- it doesn't sound normal to him, and I have to agree -- UNLESS Frazier was gay.  If Frazier was secretly in love with LHO, then it makes perfect sense, without any additional conspiracy theory.   (Occam's Razor applies here -- the simplest answer is the correct one.)

One of the times I mentioned previously what is said above was in response to Michael's 'challenge' of that scenario. The reason it didn't sound normal to him, and the reason you agree is because you pretty much have Oswald turning up on the Friday morning with a package to put in Frazier's car that Frazier had no idea about, but as noted above he did know about it the day before, so on that morning he would have expected Oswald to turn up with a package, and expecting it would mean he wouldn't be 'suspicious' of it. The day before he was 'suspicious' about the reason for deviation of normal lift routine, but he questioned it and got a response that he accepted - it's all there in his testimony.

If Frazier was secretly in love with LHO then it makes perfect sense? How so? Considering what you started your post with was erroneous then drawing a conclusion that makes it make sense is also erroneous. As for Occam's Razor applying here - no, no, no it doesn't. Making Frazier gay and secretly in love with Oswald to explain why he allows Oswald to bring a package in to work is not the simplest answer - it complicates it by having to add something to explain  it. A simpler explanation is that Frazier just let him bring in because Oswald had asked the day before if he could, it's as simple as that!

What you need to answer is, when Oswald asked for the lift the day before and Frazier questioned it and got the answer of curtain rods and Frazier accepted that, why then would Frazier be suspicious of the package on the Friday morning?

43 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Now, what you've done, Alistair, is you've completely invented a dialogue in your imagination.   Rather than do that, I ask you to stick to Frazier's testimony -- not cherry picking the parts that agree with your theory -- but focusing intently on the part that I posted -- which I suggest you have not yet fully addressed.  
 

First, yes I completely invented a dialogue, but hey I did qualify it by stating " Let's imagine a conversation that Frazier may have had with Oswald on first meeting" so clearly I wasn't trying to pass it off as being accurate. You then ask me to stick to Frazier's testimony - funnily enough, although you haven't yet mentioned it yet, that is exactly what I went on to do, and even more funnily enough it pretty much tied in with my 'imagined' conversation. I wonder why it tied in so nicely with it, because it was so obvious that it could easily be predicted.

Are you freaking kidding me when you say that I have not yet fully addressed the part that you had posted? I addressed it as fully as needed in the same post that you have picked other bits out from... you can throw the accusation that I am cherry picking the parts that agree with my theory all you want, but that dog don't hunt either for two reasons 1. I am looking at the whole of Frazier's testimony and considering it all and 2. I don't have a theory on it... ironically you do have a theory on it and you cherry pick the bits that you think fit your theory.

53 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Now -- I'm not saying LHO was gay.  I don't believe he was.  I believe that Frazier was letting his inner emotions show -- and not describing any actual events.   I'm saying that Frazier may be the gay party here -- not LHO.

No, I get that you are not saying Oswald is gay. Not really sure why you would think that I thought that was what you thought. And as I have said a few times, maybe Frazier was gay - it's just it isn't really relevant in my opinion.

 

54 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I appreciate your challenge and your interest in my Frazier theory here -- because I think Michael's challenge needs to be answered, and I think this is the simplest and most obvious answer, given Frazier's actual WC testimony, which I quoted.

I feel that I already gave an answer to Michael's challenge (please note I said 'an' answer and not 'the' answer ;) ) Anyway, again, read above as to why yours isn't the simplest and most obvious answer and how part of it is not based on his actual WC testimony.

57 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

As for the evolution of gay politics, it completely took me by surprise in the 1980's in the USA, because I was oblivious to the reality of a gay underground in the USA that went back into the 1800's.  The power of gay politics in the USA is undeniable today -- when even the Supreme Court has supported them.  Yet, for all that, the fact remains that Europe and the UK have always been more advanced than the USA with regard to gay politics.  So, I'm not making any political points here -- I'm only trying to be objective in the interest of history.
 

Reasonable.

57 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Now, maybe I'm mistaken -- I have no idea about Frazier's life except that he was in a movie about JFK, and gave several interviews. If Frazier was married and had children, then I will back off my theory with an apology to his family, if necessary.   I certainly mean no offense to anybody; I'm just searching for the truth like most everybody else here.
 

Not for one moment do I think that you mean to cause offense to anybody individually by the way...

wait, did I just read your comment right there? Does that really say that "If Frazier was married and had children, then I will back off my theory with an apology to his family, if necessary". That reads as if you are saying that if Frazier was married (and had children) then he couldn't have been gay! But, of the top of my head,  Oscar Wilde was married to a woman and had two kids with her and he was gay, Freddie Mercury was married to a woman and he was gay, Elton John was married to a woman and he was gay.

Anyway, you are searching for the truth like most everybody else here. I applaud you for that genuinely. And I do enjoy our discussions immensley. But come on Paul things don't need to be over complicated. Your theory about Frazier being gay and being secretly in love with Oswald (even if it was true) isn't needed to explain how Oswald brought the package in to work. The explanation (the 'simplest' explanation) is right there in Fraziers testimony.

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alistair,

Nice try, but you left out an important part of Frazier's WC testimony -- namely, Frazier's recollection of the morning of 11/22/1963.  Here it is:

Mr. BALL - You both got in the car about the same time? 

Mr. FRAZIER - Right. 

Mr. BALL - All right.  When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you? 

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"  And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."  That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that. 

So, you see, Alistair, the conversation that I cited was completely accurate.  It really happened.

Now, this is exactly what Michael Clark found perplexing in this thread.  Who could be so naive?  The simplest answer is this -- somebody for whom LHO "could do no wrong."  

While Wesley Buell Frazier may seem a little bit too accommodating towards LHO, it also appears within the realm of the normal if we include the average behavior of gay men toward somebody they believe could be a relationship.  

I wouldn't say a word about this unless Frazier had included the "bathroom remark" in his WC testimony when he was asked about the first day he met LHO.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

Nice try, but you left out an important part of Frazier's WC testimony -- namely, Frazier's recollection of the morning of 11/22/1963.  Here it is:

Mr. BALL - You both got in the car about the same time? 

Mr. FRAZIER - Right. 

Mr. BALL - All right.  When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you? 

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"  And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."  That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that. 

So, you see, Alistair, the conversation that I cited was completely accurate.  It really happened.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I didn't leave it out Paul, I can't post everything all the time now can I. ;)

Are you sure Paul that you want to use the words 'completely accurate' there?

It's just I can go back and look at what you said and compare that to what you have cited above and the two will be the same - that's what 'completely accurate' means. Instead of just going back and looking I will post it here for the comparison.

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

Being gay is not beside the point in my theory here -- it is the key point.  With my theory I am able to explain why Wesley Buell Frazier didn't challenge LHO when LHO put a strange package in the back seat of Frazier's car on 11/22/1963 before they went to work.   Frazier asked, "What's in the package, Lee?"  LHO replied, "Curtain rods."   Frazier said, "OK."   Then they drove away.  (I didn't make up that dialogue -- it's in sworn WC testimony.)

Your claim - Frazier didn't challenge LHO when LHO put a strange package in the back seat of Frazier's car
Cited source - the package was already in the car when Frazier got in.
(Slight difference there, but no real problem at all)

Your claim - "What's in the package, Lee?"
Cited source - "What's in the package, Lee?"
(Completely accurate) :)

Your claim - "Curtain rods."
Cited source - "Curtain rods."
(Completely accurate) :)

Your claim - OK
Cited source - "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
(No match)

Anyway, fine, that conversation happened that morning, but the point still stands, Oswald did not turn up that morning blindly with a package, Frazier knew about it the day before.

 

Cutting somewhat to the chase, a simple and direct question for you Paul, why do you need Frazier to be 'suspicious' of the package and then have him being secretly in love with Oswald as the reason why he 'ignores' that 'suspicion'?

EDIT: Or another question, what would make Frazier on that morning assume that it was anything other than curtain rods?

Edited by Alistair Briggs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

 

Sandy,

The way I look at it is there was one starting point and only two feasible ultimate end points, but that doesn't go on the assumption that he would directly be going to either from the start point because anything could have caused him to change his mind, initially he might have been planning to head to the east side, for either of the reasons you gave, something could have happened to change his mind... I have no issue with that being a possibility. He might have planned to run towards the corner, he might have planned to run towards the dal-tex building, perhaps the reason he was running in the first place was he had to post a letter in the mailbox (lol). There are certainly possibilities.

Just about to read your last (second) post - I won't quote it all. ;)

10-4 :)

Yep we will go with that. From what is seen in the clip DSL doesn't cross the blue line, but the path she is on would cross it later.

The good thing is we are in agreement (the 5 points) generally on what we are seeing regarding the 3 woman.

I can visualise how Baker could avoid all three of the ladies by changing course. Obviously our view is stopped, both by the end of the clip and just before that by Suit Man... my visual interpretation is that there are the following ways Baker could run and not crash in to anyone;

a. between running woman and PL
b. between PL and DSL
c. between DSL and LSL (personally I don't think there is enough room there so would discount it)
d. to the 'right' of LSL

I agree that c is probably not going to work, as it seems that DSL and LSL won't have any space between them.

I disagree with a. Because when Baker's foot sets down on that last step -- the one blocked from view by Very Big Man -- the foot touching down will already be past the red line and that foot will be just south of PL. For him to run between Running Woman and PL, Baker would have to "stop on a dime" on that last step, turn to his left and back a little bit toward the corner of the steps, and take one step in that direction, in order stay to PL's west. The move just doesn't make sense.

I think that b and d are the only choices. In other words, Baker first runs past PL just to the south of her, and after that runs either to the left or to the right of DSL and LSL, depending on where they are by the time he gets there. (Which will be in just a step or two.)

No matter which one of those is picked Baker would have to, as you have previously mentioned, change his course.

Slight bone of contention is that Baker is running. If Baker was walking he could stop quickly and change his course quickly and 'side-step' anyone that was in his way. The faster he is going the harder it would be to stop quickly and change his course and 'side-step' anyone. It's possible of course, after what we see of Baker in the clip, he slows down and then can 'side-step' to his hearts content, but if he does keep running he would have to (imo) at least change his course to be going 'to the right'' of LSL. From where you have placed his last foot, making his next step further from the blue line (ie if moving the blue line further away from the gray line) it would make a much bigger change of course...

Baker might indeed have had to stop when approaching DSL and LSL. If one was blocking his left path and the other his right, he may have stopped or slowed down enough to side step them.

I wouldn't say an impossible change of course, but...

A couple of 'experiments' to do (sadly, I confess I did genuinely try these out before writing this. lol)

Experiment 1.If you were to go outside just now to a road where there is a curb (as reference to a straight line), be a few steps away from the curb, draw a line parallel to the curb or use something (plank of wood) that can be placed parallel to the curb, angle yourself towards it similar to what Bakers angle is in the clip, from your standing position move your right foot on that angle on to the line (first step) and then (second step) bring your left foot round so that it lands on the line (parralel to the curb).

Experiment 2. Same as Experiment 1 except (second step) bring your left foot round so that it lands further away from the line

... it's possible to do but not a 'comfortable' move to do.

That is just from a standing position though. If repeated when running the likeliehood is that it would result in, at best, stumbling all over the place, and, at worst, 'falling over'.

*(Please don't try it running as it may end up in broken bones. ;) )

I've haven't been able to figure out the difficulty you are talking about. By the time we see Baker taking that last step, his body is already fully aligned to be running east. So all he has to do after his front foot touches down is lift his hind foot and bring it forward.

Sandy, I think those experiments rule out 'd. to the 'right' of LSL and I think c. is ruled out as not enough room to move between them. So either a. between running woman and PL or b. between PL and DSL are better avenues to investigate. ;) (although if Baker stopped his run abruptly, then it's anyone's guess. lol)

Anyroads,

I think we can agree that at some point Baker did enter the TSBD - the question is as to when that happened. The contention seems to be whether it was 30 seconds after the shots or 3 minutes after the shots.

As previously mentioned, I am of the opinion that Baker entered the TSBD after 30 seconds, and that is the time he is seen running across the road. Noted, it does look to me that his run will not take him directly to the steps but my feeling is that he will 'course correct' that... from watching the clip, just focusing on Bakers run (and setting aside for the moment his 'final- step' and what may happen after it), it looks to me that as Baker makes his run he is looking down the road, and experience tells me that doing so would mean his run 'drifts' off in the opposite direction (not by much mind you) - a person trying to run in a straight line when looking to their left will drift to the right.

I did not know that. But if anything, Baker would have been looking to his right, because that is the direction he takes.

Also it looks to me that Baker moves more to the right as he passes Truly.

Yes, he moves more to the right. But not in order to pass Truly. Baker was never even close to Truly. We know that because Truly was standing in front of the west end of the stairway (as indicated by his shadow). Yet Baker's initial path was far to the east of that.

I know that a lot of people believe that Baker and Truly nearly collide as Baker passes him, but it's an illusion. If you single step through the video it looks like the Baker and Truly characters merge into one,and then split up into two again. It's really strange looking.

BTW, I can't see any person/obstacle that forces Baker to veer to the right.

 

Both of those things lead me to think that Baker has been diverted further to the right than what his original plan was - if so then his original plan would have been to be further left than where he ended up...

That's how I read his run (as I said though, that was setting aside his 'final step' and what may happen after it)... to me it looks like his original planned destination was the TSBD door but two things made his path divert further to the right.

I disagree. Nothing made him divert to the right.

NB, even if that was his originally planned destination, what you have put forward, Sandy, could still stand. ;)

Well, yes. It could stand and it does stand! :)

Regards

P.S. I'm soon to be heading out to play my ritual Friday night game of football (soccer). Lots of running and swerving and avoiding the other players involved. ;) Later on when I'm back, I have a bit more to add on this subject in a kind of 'looking at it all from a different angle'.

  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

PRAYER MAN:

In my theory so far, Prayer Man still MIGHT be Oswald, only given two conditions: (1) that Roy Truly didn't recognize Oswald standing on the steps as he followed Officer Baker up the TSBD steps; and (2) that Oswald had a chance to get to the 2nd floor of the TSBD before Baker-Truly.

If we can allow those two conditions, then yes, Prayer Man might be Oswald.

As for the fact that no other witnesses saw Oswald on the steps before Truly-Baker ran inside -- that might be explained by the fact that within 30 seconds of the shooting, Shelly-Lovelady were already on the Grassy Knoll (that little old island) and Frazier, Molina and Williams, were outside of the TSBD, watching the incredible commotion at the Grassy Knoll.   After all -- they don't appear in the Prayer Man footage.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

(NB, everything else from that comment Paul I have read by the way, but for now wanted just to focus on the Prayer Man bit ;) )

Paul I need to ask, what leads you to believe that Shelly/Lovelady don't appear in the Prayer Man footage as they were already on the Grassy Knoll (that little old island)... (wait, surely those two aren't the same thing!) and what makes you think that Frazier, Molina and Williams don't appear in the Prayer Man footage?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...