On Speculation

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

That is your opinion in my view. No conflation is occurring in stating that facts are required to prove something as true. We disagree apparently. However,

you view of my statement is not the problem, the lack of evidence is to support the idea is. I never stated it could not be true, just highly improbable and unproven. There is no reason to rely on it as truth or evidence. I can admit I can be wrong if most evidence supports that, I hope others who support the idea can too.

No Carmine, we apparently agree that facts are required to prove something is true. However, whether you realize it or not, that is not what you have been been saying. Again, I will quote your words "If something is not proven, it is not true." That is quite a different proposition altogether.

Greg,

If something is not proven, it is not true. Hence claiming something is true without proof is not accurate. Quote all you like, I still disagree based on the verifiable evidence. Additionally you seem to neglect that Oswald himself stated he was in the building, as we prior discussed elsewhere. The issue is not me, but the problem with the photographs. Speculation offered as proof is the problem, not my view of the facts.

Mark,

You like Greg are entitled to your view, I disagree. Unlike some I do not demand the thinking of others conform to my speculations. Hence why I try never to speculate. Is there proof of Woodstock, clear pictures I do believe and substantial corroborating witnesses, so there is proof that happened. Demonstrable truth is proven by evidence, not philosophy, and not by flawed images. Tell me do these photographic claims enjoy the same proof as Woodstock, no they do not.

Carmine, I'm bowing out of this discussion with you. Hopefully you have a friend you trust who will explain it to you in a way you can accept.

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

I never wanted to have a debate on the subject. I hope you can do so next time without the disdain for opposing views.

Carmine, you willingly responded to Robert's mention of PM and you knew I would respond to that, so forgive me any skepticism on the first part. On the latter... as already stated, we agree... evidence is necessary to prove a fact. What we don't agree upon and which I again suggest you should seek advice from a trusted friend about, is that the state of evidence, or the lack of evidence, does not make a fact disappear, destroy it, turn it into a falsehood, or indeed, have any affect upon it at all.

I have tried to help you understand this, as has Mark. Let it go and take a deep breath and if you feel the need to reply, bite down on it and get some advice first.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I can see both sides of this discussion. On one hand, there is a person at the top of the steps who no one seems to be able to account for, and who certainly seems to bear a strong resemblance to Oswald. OTOH, the photo is blurry as hell, and a proper ID of Prayer Man is somewhat elusive. However, should Prayer Man have been photographed, in this quality, on the SE corner of the 6th floor, the photo would have been the cornerstone of the WCR.

Myself, I plan to keep an open mind on the matter, and hope that Buell Wesley Frazier decides to come clean some time before he goes on to the Great Beyond. The two things that bother me most about Frazier is that he testified to the WC he did not see a helmeted motorcycle cop (Baker) run past him on the top of the steps, and that the tall lanky Frazier can be seen, in the photo, looking directly at Prayer Man, yet he has no recollection of that either.

However, don't get me started on the whole Baker/Frazier/Shelley/Lovelady/Victoria Adams thing. There are ALL kinds of people in impossible places at impossible times in this mess.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

PM only became an issue recently thanks to new technology and some fine research.

For those who have been trying to find missing pieces of the puzzle, it's a potential doozy.

It forces everyone to think harder about LHO's movements, the testimony of co-workers and the WC findings.

It's only in the past few years when events of the day are starting to harden; old theories are dying exponentially.

IMO, it's hard to overstate the importance of the whole PM investigation.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Carmine,

I have no dog in this fight. But please say:

What are some of the proven propositions of JFK researchers and students? Thanks.

[David Josephs]

In your opinions, perhaps you should have just restarted the PM thread. The point is without substantial evidence it is not verifiable. It is hard to overstate the required evidence is necessary to have a reliable conclusion. In my view by demanding others accept the hypothesis without the evidence offered proves nothing but your commitment to an idea. If it is not what you claim, it forces us to waste time, how many prior "doozies" have been offered without substantial evidence? Color me unimpressed.

Bravo Carmine... Seems amazing to me how much time we need to spend listening to GP "explaining" himself while claiming other's offerings do not make any sense or are easily disproven with a word or phrase; adding evidence to the rebuttal that actually corroborates has never been successfully accomplished on his part, imo.

Here is a moment in time as Mark so eloquently put it... Altgens tells us that this last shot occurs when JFK is about 15 feet from him or 40 feet past z313... this is supported by the FBI's WCD298 and SS's CE884.

Yet the image shows the shot having already taken place up the street...

What is the "truth" when we have such conflicting evidence? The WCR and Specter would have us believe the physical evidence trumps the witness evidence... yet the physical evidence puts a shot 15 feet from Altgens, only the Zfilm doesn't corroborate this... which info is "false"?

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Josephs,

Your post #30 interests but puzzles me.

Do you believe the extant Z-film is an accurate recordation of what happened? Just a question.

Second question: In your opinion is the extant Altgens 6 an accurate depiction of what happened close to Altgens, ignoring the background and PM?

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

I never wanted to have a debate on the subject. I hope you can do so next time without the disdain for opposing views.

Carmine, you willingly responded to Robert's mention of PM and you knew I would respond to that, so forgive me any skepticism on the first part. On the latter... as already stated, we agree... evidence is necessary to prove a fact. What we don't agree upon and which I again suggest you should seek advice from a trusted friend about, is that the state of evidence, or the lack of evidence, does not make a fact disappear, destroy it, turn it into a falsehood, or indeed, have any affect upon it at all.

I have tried to help you understand this, as has Mark. Let it go and take a deep breath and if you feel the need to reply, bite down on it and get some advice first.

Greg,

It is not that we misunderstand each other, it is that we disagree on the requirements to prove the PM hypothesis. I am calm, I have no reason not be.

A statement that shows the depth of your confusion, Carmine.

David,

I appreciate the kind words.

[Thomas Graves]

Greg,

I never wanted to have a debate on the subject. I hope you can do so next time without the disdain for opposing views.

Carmine, you willingly responded to Robert's mention of PM and you knew I would respond to that, so forgive me any skepticism on the first part. On the latter... as already stated, we agree... evidence is necessary to prove a fact. What we don't agree upon and which I again suggest you should seek advice from a trusted friend about, is that the state of evidence, or the lack of evidence, does not make a fact disappear, destroy it, turn it into a falsehood, or indeed, have any affect upon it at all.

I have tried to help you understand this, as has Mark. Let it go and take a deep breath and if you feel the need to reply, bite down on it and get some advice first.

Greg,

It is not that we misunderstand each other, it is that we disagree on the requirements to prove the PM hypothesis. I am calm, I have no reason not be.

A statement that shows the depth of your confusion, Carmine.

David,

I appreciate the kind words.

To be, or not be?

LOL

--Tommy

[Greg Parker]

In your opinions, perhaps you should have just restarted the PM thread. The point is without substantial evidence it is not verifiable. It is hard to overstate the required evidence is necessary to have a reliable conclusion. In my view by demanding others accept the hypothesis without the evidence offered proves nothing but your commitment to an idea. If it is not what you claim, it forces us to waste time, how many prior "doozies" have been offered without substantial evidence? Color me unimpressed.

Bravo Carmine... Seems amazing to me how much time we need to spend listening to GP "explaining" himself while claiming other's offerings do not make any sense or are easily disproven with a word or phrase; adding evidence to the rebuttal that actually corroborates has never been successfully accomplished on his part, imo.

This isn't worth it. You're exactly the type of person I and others left over. Thanks for reminding me. This forum gets what it deserves.

Good luck to those with any brain cells persevering here.

Here is a moment in time as Mark so eloquently put it... Altgens tells us that this last shot occurs when JFK is about 15 feet from him or 40 feet past z313... this is supported by the FBI's WCD298 and SS's CE884.

Yet the image shows the shot having already taken place up the street...

What is the "truth" when we have such conflicting evidence? The WCR and Specter would have us believe the physical evidence trumps the witness evidence... yet the physical evidence puts a shot 15 feet from Altgens, only the Zfilm doesn't corroborate this... which info is "false"?

[Tom Neal]

What I have is conformation of a particular program. What I have is a large amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a "recruiter" or "spotter" for this program. What I have is Oswald's actions matching the needs of this program. Based on all of that (and more) - yes I do indeed speculate that Oswald was recruited into that program. It is not idle speculation. Not by a long shot.

Hello Greg,

I hope you continue to post here. There are MANY who want to hear what you have to say.

Do you know the identity of the individual who is the "recruiter" or "spotter"? Will you be releasing any additional information in the near future, or saving it for a book?

Thanks for any thoughts/info,

Tom

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

Well with such reasonable assessment and the ability to allow dissent, I wonder why I ever left. However, again the topic is not me but speculation. You do seem to have trouble with that. So allow me to demonstrate the problems with speculation without evidence.

My salvo wasn't aimed at you, Carmine.

The doctors at Bethesda presumed or speculated on JFK's wounds.

It is a word with shades of meaning. Or to put it another way... not all speculation is bad, or equal. The doctor's were not guessing from tossing a coin. Being the "public" hospital in a gun-happy city, they had vast experience with gunshot wounds. They drew on that experience to evaluate the evidence before them.

The Commission never put Oswald in the Sniper's Nest based on substantial evidence, they in my view speculated that he was there.

They speculated based on the evidence they massaged as best they could. Again, they didn't just flip a coin, which seems to be about what your opinion is of speculation.

Many people speculate that a single picture, in some cases a blurred one is the key to the case without verifiable evidence, that is speculation.

Many people paint badly with a broad brush....

So if I may quote the person who developed the Prayer Man hypothesis.

The photo first presented as the Prayer Man is not an original but "...it's not from Couch it's from Darnell. Robert Groden spliced the two films together and labelled the result 'Couch'

.http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354

What difference does it make? A clearer may still not show clear enough. It is not about the photo. That is just one piece of a large array of evidence. You have a right not to accept that. Ignorance is bliss every goddamn time...(according Tom Waits).

Additionally as I have prior discussed with you, Oswald himself feasibly stated he was in the building. Here is another difference between us, if you produce evidence to prove your claims, I can admit I am wrong. I do not need to rely on insults I have evidence.

And as I have said in the past... you need to know what the question was. I contend that the question, feasibly, was "where were you when the police officer came in?"

[Greg Parker]

What I have is conformation of a particular program. What I have is a large amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a "recruiter" or "spotter" for this program. What I have is Oswald's actions matching the needs of this program. Based on all of that (and more) - yes I do indeed speculate that Oswald was recruited into that program. It is not idle speculation. Not by a long shot.

Hello Greg,

I hope you continue to post here. There are MANY who want to hear what you have to say.

Do you know the identity of the individual who is the "recruiter" or "spotter"? Will you be releasing any additional information in the near future, or saving it for a book?

Thanks for any thoughts/info,

Tom

Tom, thanks for the thumbs up. I did only come here to straighten out an individual who was messing with the truth about old posts of mine. Have stayed longer than intended because there are a couple of threads of interests.

Yes, I know who the recruiter was. It will all be in volume two of my book, hopefully out later this year. That part is already written, though more players and background to get to.

I know it may seem like a strange statement, but the same program that sent him to the Soviet Union, also got him into the TSBD. Except it was a pretext to lure him in there in the latter case.

The whole thing with the recruitment and the trip (which had a dual purpose) won't be anything like you might expect.

Jon Tidd said the planners had a great knowledge of politicians... that shows keen insight, tho it goes beyond a good knowledge of politicians. Anyone wanting to know why Oswald was in the TT for example, and what his alleged pocket litter was all about, need only brush up on history. Same goes for other, older aspects of the legend.

There just happened to be someone holed up in DPD HQ all day of Nov 22 who had a keen knowledge of all the right history - that is - the history that was borrowed and overlaid on Oswald. He also had the right connections...

We have been going around in circles for 50+ years because we have accepted far too much on face value. In court, it is common practice to have an agreed set of facts between defense and prosecution as a starting point. We are under no such obligation to accept any of the facts as given by the government, it's agencies, or by Texas officials.

Here's one recent and very basic example dug up by a guy named Mick Purdy...

The accepted dogma - Wes Frazier took LHO to work every Monday from the time Oswald started at the TSBD.

Fact: That's not a certainty by any means.

Mr. RANKIN.When your husband went back to work on Monday, October 28th, did he drive with Wesley Frazier at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. It seems--it seems that he had overslept and that someone else had picked him up. But, no--no, I remember that he did not come to get him, but Lee met him near his house. Lee told me that. Or his sister. I don't remember. Lee told me about it. But I have forgotten.

Mr. RANKIN. But he did not go in by bus that day?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. He said his sister drove him to the bus. I only know that this boy did not come to get him that day.

Mr. RANKIN. As far as you know, he may have gone all the way into Dallas in a car, or he may have gone in a bus?

Mrs. OSWALD. Perhaps he hadn't told him to pick him up on that day. I don't know. I only know the fact that the boy did not pick him up on that day.

Mick's contention is that Frazier did not take LHO to work on Nov 22, either. There are no witnesses to Oswald walking to the Randle house (though such witnesses were sought), no witnesses to Oswald being in the car except Wes, no witnesses to Oswald walking from the car park. In fact, there are witnesses to Oswald's absence from the car park because Edward Shields told the HSCA investigator sent to interview him that Charles Givens had called out from the other building asking Wes where his rider was. According to Shields, Wes replied that he had dropped Lee at the front entrance.

The point is, the whole case needs stripping back and rewriting without any allegiance except to approximate the facts as closely as possible.

[Tom Neal]

What I have is conformation of a particular program. What I have is a large amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a "recruiter" or "spotter" for this program. What I have is Oswald's actions matching the needs of this program. Based on all of that (and more) - yes I do indeed speculate that Oswald was recruited into that program. It is not idle speculation. Not by a long shot.

Hello Greg,

I hope you continue to post here. There are MANY who want to hear what you have to say.

Do you know the identity of the individual who is the "recruiter" or "spotter"? Will you be releasing any additional information in the near future, or saving it for a book?

Thanks for any thoughts/info,

Tom

Tom, thanks for the thumbs up. I did only come here to straighten out an individual who was messing with the truth about old posts of mine. Have stayed longer than intended because there are a couple of threads of interests.

Yes, I know who the recruiter was. It will all be in volume two of my book, hopefully out later this year. That part is already written, though more players and background to get to.

I know it may seem like a strange statement, but the same program that sent him to the Soviet Union, also got him into the TSBD. Except it was a pretext to lure him in there in the latter case.

The whole thing with the recruitment and the trip (which had a dual purpose) won't be anything like you might expect.

Jon Tidd said the planners had a great knowledge of politicians... that shows keen insight, tho it goes beyond a good knowledge of politicians. Anyone wanting to know why Oswald was in the TT for example, and what his alleged pocket litter was all about, need only brush up on history. Same goes for other, older aspects of the legend.

There just happened to be someone holed up in DPD HQ all day of Nov 22 who had a keen knowledge of all the right history - that is - the history that was borrowed and overlaid on Oswald. He also had the right connections...

We have been going around in circles for 50+ years because we have accepted far too much on face value. In court, it is common practice to have an agreed set of facts between defense and prosecution as a starting point. We are under no such obligation to accept any of the facts as given by the government, it's agencies, or by Texas officials.

Here's one recent and very basic example dug up by a guy named Mick Purdy...

The accepted dogma - Wes Frazier took LHO to work every Monday from the time Oswald started at the TSBD.

Fact: That's not a certainty by any means.

Mr. RANKIN.When your husband went back to work on Monday, October 28th, did he drive with Wesley Frazier at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. It seems--it seems that he had overslept and that someone else had picked him up. But, no--no, I remember that he did not come to get him, but Lee met him near his house. Lee told me that. Or his sister. I don't remember. Lee told me about it. But I have forgotten.

Mr. RANKIN. But he did not go in by bus that day?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. He said his sister drove him to the bus. I only know that this boy did not come to get him that day.

Mr. RANKIN. As far as you know, he may have gone all the way into Dallas in a car, or he may have gone in a bus?

Mrs. OSWALD. Perhaps he hadn't told him to pick him up on that day. I don't know. I only know the fact that the boy did not pick him up on that day.

Mick's contention is that Frazier did not take LHO to work on Nov 22, either. There are no witnesses to Oswald walking to the Randle house (though such witnesses were sought), no witnesses to Oswald being in the car except Wes, no witnesses to Oswald walking from the car park. In fact, there are witnesses to Oswald's absence from the car park because Edward Shields told the HSCA investigator sent to interview him that Charles Givens had called out from the other building asking Wes where his rider was. According to Shields, Wes replied that he had dropped Lee at the front entrance.

The point is, the whole case needs stripping back and rewriting without any allegiance except to approximate the facts as closely as possible.

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the reply.

A tantalizing post to say the very least. I'm eager to see what you have come up!

Tom

[David Andrews]

Greg, I look forward to reading your new research.

I think a lot of people have speculated that the defection led to the TSBD, through the ruse of an intelligence service employing Oswald as a dangle to left and right groups based on his defection, and then maneuvering him into surveilling the Dealey Plaza plotters. My feeling is that Oswald's mission to dangle for left groups (FPCC, et al) came to little, and was a cover for his reporting on right groups. Which would have been used to direct him to the TSBD. Lefty Lee, the defector, the vocal malcontent.

It seems from appearances that Oswald's entire career is founded on the defection, and that that career was the dirty work that he hoped would lift him into economic and professional success.

If you have discovered a more accurate scenario, your evidence or other support will be very important.

Edited March 12, 2015 by David Andrews