Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[Ken Davies]

I believe there is an aspect ratio issue with the Darnell frames we have been looking at, with width being flattered somewhat.

This may be making Prayer Man look a little bulkier than he really is.

Look for instance at how brawny the man in the white cowboy suit (back to camera) looks in Darnell (look at those big arms!):

Now look at the same man in Wiegman--he looks so much more slight:

Aspect ratio really does matter in these things. It was for instance the reason some people thought the rather gorilla-esque 'Lovelady' in the Martin film couldn't possibly be the real Lovelady.

Here is what happens to Prayer Man with a 10% reduction in the width of the Darnell frame (without corresponding reduction in height):

**

Would anyone here--Robin? Martin?--have the know-how to look at this aspect ratio issue in a more systematic fashion?

Hello Sean

If that is a bottle of Coke that Payer Man is holding, it still bothers me that, in both pictures, he appRears to be holding it with both hands. Does this seem normal?

As I stated earlier in this thread, the posture reminds me of the stance my late father used to assume after he bought his first 8 mm home movie camera in the early 60's and he was out in public looking for something to film. We used to say he looked like a vulture waiting for something to die.

Robert,

My late father bought his Kodak 8mm camera in 1959 and that is a pose I often saw him in. That makes me think that "prayer man" was soeone with a movie camera, trying to film the motorcade.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I believe there is an aspect ratio issue with the Darnell frames we have been looking at, with width being flattered somewhat.

This may be making Prayer Man look a little bulkier than he really is.

Look for instance at how brawny the man in the white cowboy suit (back to camera) looks in Darnell (look at those big arms!):

Now look at the same man in Wiegman--he looks so much more slight:

Aspect ratio really does matter in these things. It was for instance the reason some people thought the rather gorilla-esque 'Lovelady' in the Martin film couldn't possibly be the real Lovelady.

Here is what happens to Prayer Man with a 10% reduction in the width of the Darnell frame (without corresponding reduction in height):

**

Would anyone here--Robin? Martin?--have the know-how to look at this aspect ratio issue in a more systematic fashion?

Hello Sean

If that is a bottle of Coke that Payer Man is holding, it still bothers me that, in both pictures, he appRears to be holding it with both hands. Does this seem normal?

As I stated earlier in this thread, the posture reminds me of the stance my late father used to assume after he bought his first 8 mm home movie camera in the early 60's and he was out in public looking for something to film. We used to say he looked like a vulture waiting for something to die.

Robert,

My late father bought his Kodak 8mm camera in 1959 and that is a pose I often saw him in. That makes me think that "prayer man" was soeone with a movie camera, trying to film the motorcade.

Hello Ken

Let me guess, I'll bet your dad drove everyone crazy with his camera, too, right? LOL I remember when my dad decided to record my cousin Betty's wedding on film in 1964. He bought this light bar for his 8 mm camera with these four monstrous floodlight bulbs on it. My god, it was like looking into the flash from an above ground nuclear test! I sure miss the old guy sometimes.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I believe there is an aspect ratio issue with the Darnell frames we have been looking at, with width being flattered somewhat.

This may be making Prayer Man look a little bulkier than he really is.

Look for instance at how brawny the man in the white cowboy suit (back to camera) looks in Darnell (look at those big arms!):

Now look at the same man in Wiegman--he looks so much more slight:

Aspect ratio really does matter in these things. It was for instance the reason some people thought the rather gorilla-esque 'Lovelady' in the Martin film couldn't possibly be the real Lovelady.

Here is what happens to Prayer Man with a 10% reduction in the width of the Darnell frame (without corresponding reduction in height):

**

Would anyone here--Robin? Martin?--have the know-how to look at this aspect ratio issue in a more systematic fashion?

Hello Sean

If that is a bottle of Coke that Payer Man is holding, it still bothers me that, in both pictures, he appears to be holding it with both hands. Does this seem normal?

As I stated earlier in this thread, the posture reminds me of the stance my late father used to assume after he bought his first 8 mm home movie camera in the early 60's and he was out in public looking for something to film. We used to say he looked like a vulture waiting for something to die.

Robert, The YouTube film clip that William Kelly linked to shows Prayer Man in the first segment.

Prayer Man lowers his right hand down to his side. There also appears to be upward movement with his left hand moving closer to his face.

If you have time to take a look at it, I would be interested in your take.

Hello Richard

Are you referring to the link Mr. Kelly posted in the first post of this thread?

Yes.

Here is the link:

▶ L.H. Oswald Leaving TSBD November 22 1963? - YouTube

Hello Richard

I have watched the film three or four times now and I must admit, it is a bit difficult to make out details in this film. Is that Prayer Man or Lovelady that seems to dominate the top of the steps in this film?

[Richard Hocking]

...

Hello Richard

I have watched the film three or four times now and I must admit, it is a bit difficult to make out details in this film. Is that Prayer Man or Lovelady that seems to dominate the top of the steps in this film?

Robert,

I should have qualified my original statement better to say the "man who appears to be Prayer Man".

This clip was certainly filmed later than the Weigman clip we have been viewing in this thread. There are more police arriving at the front entrance of the TSBD. So it's safe to say Lovelady would be long gone by now.

The resolution is bad, but I have no problem seeing the right arm and hand.

The left hand is the one I am more interested in.

[Robert Prudhomme]

...

Hello Richard

I have watched the film three or four times now and I must admit, it is a bit difficult to make out details in this film. Is that Prayer Man or Lovelady that seems to dominate the top of the steps in this film?

Robert,

I should have qualified my original statement better to say the "man who appears to be Prayer Man".

This clip was certainly filmed later than the Weigman clip we have been viewing in this thread. There are more police arriving at the front entrance of the TSBD. So it's safe to say Lovelady would be long gone by now.

The resolution is bad, but I have no problem seeing the right arm and hand.

The left hand is the one I am more interested in.

Hello Richard

Yes, there does seem to be a greater police presence in this film.

I was looking in the shadows at our top left of the stairway for P.M. I will watch it again and look for movements in the hands of the man we can see.

[Sean Murphy]

Gents, the man in that video has nothing to do with Prayer Man--completely different timeframe.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Gents, the man in that video has nothing to do with Prayer Man--completely different timeframe.

I was just about to say, after an additional viewing, that I thought I could see this man raising his left hand to his face.

Sean, do you see, in the first segment of this film, what appears to be a hand drawn arrow pointing down to something on the left side of the screen? Any idea what this was about?

Edited August 27, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Pat Speer]

As far as Baker's problems with the floor, I believe you're missing something. The higher the floor, the closer Oswald was to the sniper's nest. The closer Oswald was to the sniper's nest, the greater the danger Baker faced when charging into the building, and the greater his heroism. It's kinda like the fish that got away. It got bigger, real fast. In Baker's testimony, he was reminded that it wasn't all that big. By September, however, it could very well have been growing again.

On the contrary, Pat, the higher the floor the more stupid Baker looks for having let him go--and the more responsible for the death of a fellow officer.

Not at all. No one has ever blamed Baker for letting Oswald go, and there's no reason to believe they would have should he have encountered Oswald on the fourth floor. He was trying to get to the roof, and Truly said Oswald was OK. I mean, what was he supposed to do? Round up and hold everyone in the building at gunpoint based upon his suspicion a shot had been fired from the roof?

[Thomas Graves]

Gents, the man in that video has nothing to do with Prayer Man--completely different timeframe.

You're right, Sean. The guy in that video they're mistaking for PM looks like he's wearing a suit and tie.

--Tommy

[Pat Speer]

Fritz's notes say that Lee said he was

"out with Bill Shelley in front,"

As Richard Hocking points out, the only time he could have been out front with Shelley

was prior to and during the actual shooting, because Shelley left the front steps immediately after

and went to explore the grassy knoll.

It is a long time since I seriously studied the interrogation reports, but I propose a theory and invite pot-shots from members:

This answer by Oz does not appear in Hosty or Bookhout, correct?

If not, why not?

I suggest it happened BEFORE Hosty and Bookhout arrived,

and so the FBI reports are foggy because Hosty and Bookhout are relying on what Fritz told them.

I thought I'd run that up the flagpole

and see if anyone salutes!

"out with Bill Shelley in front," when taken in context

What context are you referring to Pat?

, suggests Oswald told Fritz he saw Bill Shelley when leaving the building. Some have tried to twist it into being a claim by Oswald he was out front at the time of the shooting.

Nearly everyone agrees that Fritz's notes are vague. The placement, however, of Oswald being near Shelley is not. And there is a very limited window when Oswald could have been in the company of Shelley.

The possibility does exist that Prayer Man is Oswald. But we've been over this and that doesn't make a lot of sense, seeing as none of those present recalled such a thing.

This issue was discussed earlier in this very thread by Sean, myself and others. We decided there were visible suggestions in the film and photo record that Prayer Man could have made a late entry to the back of the stairs while the attention of the other TSBD employees on the stairs were focused on the Motorcade approaching, passing them, and then the subsequent chaos when the shots were fired.

Of course, one could say they all lied.

We can not rule out the possibility that some individuals may have lied. But another alternative is that many in the group never turned around to see who was behind them during those moments after the Presidential Limo turned onto Elm.

Ha. I watched the Newsroom on HBO last night. It dealt with a producer who'd edited an interview to suit his needs.

Now I see that Richard has added the comment "The possibility does exist that Prayer Man is Oswald." into his post as if it was something I wrote, so that he could comment on this possibility. It's something I might have written. But I didn't write it.

And it changed the context of what I was writing about.

And now I see that Ray has corrected "my typos" and changed the word "Oswald" to the word "Baker" when he responded to another post, when in fact there was no typo and I meant to write Oswald.

It's more than a bit ironic, IMO, that I just wrote a post about words, and how they are imprecise and often misinterpreted, and here I find my imprecise posts misinterpreted.

When I wrote "But we've been over this and that doesn't make a lot of sense, seeing as none of those present recalled such a thing" some assumed I was talking about "Prayer Man" when I was actually referring to Fritz's notes, which I discussed with Fetzer ad nauseum earlier in the year.

So let me be clear. I find the possibility Oswald was Prayer Man intriguing. I find the possibility Baker and Truly noticed Oswald as they entered the building, and then lied about it, and then moved this encounter to a place STILL suggesting Oswald's innocence, and then got Mrs. Reid to lie about it in statements not only suggesting Oswald's innocence, but government complicity in framing Oswald (via the shirt fibers) silly.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Pat Speer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

And now I see that Ray has corrected "my typos" and changed the word "Oswald" to the word "Baker" when he responded to another post, when in fact there was no typo and I meant to write Oswald.

Read it again Pat. The only way your post makes sense is to make the changes/transpositions I made.

Otherwise, your post makes no sense.

[Sean Murphy]

Not at all. No one has ever blamed Baker for letting Oswald go, and there's no reason to believe they would have should he have encountered Oswald on the fourth floor. He was trying to get to the roof, and Truly said Oswald was OK. I mean, what was he supposed to do? Round up and hold everyone in the building at gunpoint based upon his suspicion a shot had been fired from the roof?

That is simply incorrect, Pat.

Here's what motorcycle officer Stavis Ellis told Larry Sneed. As the final sentence makes clear, he was not alone in this view:

"...That's when they encountered Oswald drinking a coke on the second floor. Baker was told he was all right, that he worked there. That's where Baker messed up! He should have sealed off the building and not let anybody out till it was ascertained that nobody there had anything to do with it. He could have saved an officer's life had he arrested him there, had he done what he was supposed to have done. We don't say anything to him about it; officers make mistakes just like everybody else."

Had Baker been known to have encountered a man by the rear stairway on the fourth floor (or even higher) and then let him go, of course, the error of judgement would have been seen as all the greater. (It once even crossed my mind that maybe Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit was telling of an actual encounter with Oswald that was relocated down a couple of floors to spare the blushes of the DPD; but that idea just doesn't check out.) Then again, an encounter on a higher floor and by the stairway would at least have given Baker a credible reason for being interested in the man in the first place. The second-floor lunchroom story never really gave him that.

[Sean Murphy]

So let me be clear. I find the possibility Oswald was Prayer Man intriguing. I find the possibility Baker and Truly noticed Oswald as they entered the building, and then lied about it, and then moved this encounter to a place STILL suggesting Oswald's innocence, and then got Mrs. Reid to lie about it in statements not only suggesting Oswald's innocence, but government complicity in framing Oswald (via the shirt fibers) silly.

What's silly, Pat, is the idea that we could have Oswald be Prayer Man without that changing anything else in our understanding of what went down in those first couple of minutes post-shooting in the TSBD.

Silly also is the idea of the 'investigating' authorities not going into cover-up overdrive to deprive Oswald of his 100% ironclad alibi.

And very silly indeed is the idea that Oswald's immediate response to the shooting out front would have been to hurry--yes, hurry--upstairs to buy a coke.

The theory being put forward in this thread, in case you missed it, is not that the second-floor lunchroom story was a well-thought out strategem but that it was hastily and crudely put together on the evening of the assassination as an emergency damage-limitation exercise.

Can you suggest a place other than the second-floor lunchroom where the incident could have been relocated?

Edited August 27, 2013 by Sean Murphy

[Sean Murphy]

Sean,

The (apparent) lowering of PM's hands might be an optical illusion caused by the slow rising of the person in front of him (who is either standing up from a kneeling or sitting position or, perhaps, going up one step backwards).

That's a very astute observation, Thomas, you may well be right.

Though I still think (and this may well be just subjective impression on my part) that the distance of Prayer Man's hands to his face is increasing ever so slightly.

[Pat Speer]

And now I see that Ray has corrected "my typos" and changed the word "Oswald" to the word "Baker" when he responded to another post, when in fact there was no typo and I meant to write Oswald.

Read it again Pat. The only way your post makes sense is to make the changes/transpositions I made.

Otherwise, your post makes no sense.

This proves my point about the failure of words. I wrote "Oswald" because I was thinking about the location of Oswald in the building at the time of his encounter with Baker, and you saw it through the prism of Baker's location at the time of his encounter with Oswald.