Mark Knight Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 It would be wonderful if Gary Mack would allow someone qualified to have access to some of these films and images to use modern enhancement techniques in an attempt to prove or disprove the "Prayer Man" story. [NO, Mr. Mack...I'm NOT that person.] After all...aren't we all merely seeking the TRUTH? Or do some have other agendas? [Yes, I can answer my own question.] In the past, Gary Mack has been helpful to me, directing me to important information I was otherwise unable to find. I'm not a fan of the "back-channel communications" he uses, but then I suppose that's simply him exercising his own freedom [or lack thereof]. But based upon my most recent exchanges with Mr. Mack a few years back, I doubt he'd let me within 1000 feet of the Sixth Floor Museum...so it might be wise to send someone else to seek permission to access the films and images that make up the Prayer Man story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) That is a shocker. Just to be clear - Greg - you don't think prayerman is Oswald? Edited March 19, 2015 by Paul Brancato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) None of the photo evidence is a Game Changer - they said that about Oswald in the doorway and it turned out to be Lovelady, they said that about the Tramps and we still can't agree on who they are despite the clear pix, and Landsdale at DP, etc. Despite the great strides in facial recognition software - nobody seems to have even tried to get a specialist to look into this - Game Changers must be solid - undesputable evidence of an assassination related crime not attribuable to Oswald that is admissible in court or can be investigated by Congress - and they are out there. And yes Thomas, I will make you a copy of the tape and send into you as soon as I can - and have arranged for the original to be preserved at the Baylor Library, as we agreed. And I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what button to push to get to the most recent posting on a thread as I only go to the first post. Thanks, BK Edited March 19, 2015 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 I find the Prayer Man discussion the single most fascinating idea about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In no other place anywhere have I seen the case for Lee Oswald being Prayer Man so comprehensively and effectively captured as it is here in this thread. It's a signature product that the Education Forum should be proud of and it's worthy of special consideration. If the simple act of pinning the thread creates too many challenges or is too disruptive, then consider creating a "Greatest Hits" or "Hall of Fame" category for threads that encapsulate significant bodies of work and thought. Recognize threads that have clearly risen above the rest in terms of quality of research, longevity, member interest, etc. It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out what the MVP threads are. Since research in not a linear process—progress generally happens in spurts with longer dry spells—why allow an important topic currently in a quiet phase to drop off the radar screen and potentially be forgotten because it gets pushed into oblivion by here-today-gone-tomorrow discussion? Always look closely at the trees but never lose sight of the forest in the process. FWIW. Well said, Mr. Sorenson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 That is a shocker. Just to be clear - Greg - you don't think prayerman is Oswald? Paul, if this is directed at me, I'm a bit puzzled as to how I gave you that impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I find the Prayer Man discussion the single most fascinating idea about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In no other place anywhere have I seen the case for Lee Oswald being Prayer Man so comprehensively and effectively captured as it is here in this thread. It's a signature product that the Education Forum should be proud of and it's worthy of special consideration. If the simple act of pinning the thread creates too many challenges or is too disruptive, then consider creating a "Greatest Hits" or "Hall of Fame" category for threads that encapsulate significant bodies of work and thought. Recognize threads that have clearly risen above the rest in terms of quality of research, longevity, member interest, etc. It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out what the MVP threads are. Since research in not a linear process—progress generally happens in spurts with longer dry spells—why allow an important topic currently in a quiet phase to drop off the radar screen and potentially be forgotten because it gets pushed into oblivion by here-today-gone-tomorrow discussion? Always look closely at the trees but never lose sight of the forest in the process. FWIW. That sounds like an eminently feasible compromise, Randy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 Carmine Listen very closely. You seem to want to divide people into two distinct camps, those that believe PM is Oswald, and those that don't. I have always been highly suspect of those wishing to make every issue that comes along either black or white, as this tends to stymie further investigation into the issue. Is that what your intention is? One more time, I do NOT believe PM is Oswald, as I have not seen conclusive proof to confirm this, but I believe it highly PROBABLE PM is Oswald. Do you see the difference? For that reason, I wish this thread to have some sort of prominence, if only for the chance it may attract some brilliant SOB with the means to move the investigation into PM forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 Carmine Listen very closely. You seem to want to divide people into two distinct camps, those that believe PM is Oswald, and those that don't. I have always been highly suspect of those wishing to make every issue that comes along either black or white, as this tends to stymie further investigation into the issue. Is that what your intention is? One more time, I do NOT believe PM is Oswald, as I have not seen conclusive proof to confirm this, but I believe it highly PROBABLE PM is Oswald. Do you see the difference? For that reason, I wish this thread to have some sort of prominence, if only for the chance it may attract some brilliant SOB with the means to move the investigation into PM forward. Bob, listen very closely, I use verifiable evidence. That is the divide. Try as you might this is not about me, but a bad idea that some claim is the truth. Verifiable evidence is what we are seeking in the PM matter. Would you rather we not find it? You seem more eager to discourage anyone from looking for it than you are to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 Bob, I don't care about PM or any other unproven claim, just the attacks on those who disagree for using evidence. Feel free to gather evidence, it would be a welcome change. I have never attacked you on this forum, or any other forum. And I do not appreciate comments such as "Feel free to gather evidence, it would be a welcome change." Methinks you are trying just a bit too hard to put the PM theory into a bad light. What is it about PM that really bothers you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Ward Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Carmine,one gets the impression that you are trying to bait Greg and Lee.If you want to argue with them,why not use the PM,which in this instance does not mean Prayerman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) In lieu of an identifiable photo of Oswald in that corner we can and have looked at the other evidence and the statements of most everyone it COULD have been and none appear to equate themselves with that corner - the closest anyone comes is Shelley, yet Shelley is in a white shirt, tie & jacket. I would remind you of Carolyn Arnold and the fact that the FBI did not publish either of her statements nor did they call her to testify. Oswald was wearing a darkish brown button down button front shirt over a t-shirt, no glasses, bracelet on left hand and grey pants. Since I too do not believe that Lunchroom scene ever happened - or at least not with Oswald - his being "out front with Shelley" and Bookout's explanation that it was after the fact may be a CYA on his part. It's not that Lovelady is really Oswald - it's that Oswald is set back, like Shelley. The ONLY thing that keeps me from accepting it outright is that not a single person claims they said he was there in any of the 50 years of independent research that's been done.. While so many other areas of error have been pointed out by witnesses. Until we find a reasonable alternative to it being Oswald (aint it strange that we are doing everything we can to prove it was NOT him, just to cover all bases?) I think we have to start accepting the probability that it's really him out there and the lunchroom charade was to move him from these steps into the building. If it was Oswald coming down the stairs in Baker's affidavit - I'd think it would have said so. Edited March 19, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Carmine - cease and desist. Show a little self control. You've made your point. No one is asking you to make it over and over again. It's upsetting to me, and I don't have a dog in this fight, of that is even what it is. The subject is interesting, clearly important, and nothing, absolutely nothing you can say here can change that. So be respectful. You are not being attacked, you are just being asked to stop repeating your objections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Greg - I misremembered something, which is why I posted that I thought you disagreed with The Prayerman proposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 More food for thought - the man's posture sure looks similar as well... also the height comparison to Wesley who I think was over 6' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 David, As I stated prior I disagree, but I could be wrong, the evidence will decide. Unlike the others I happen to agree that the Evidence will ultimately bear it out IF and only IF that evidence can somehow be authenticated. If a finer detailed image can be had - it ought to be. Again though, in lieu of a photo of someone shooting JFK from the Grassy Knoll or Southern Knoll or anywhere else we still do not conclude that it must have been Oswald in the window with a rifle. There are numerous bits of conflicting evidence which makes that conclusion impossible. So, if he was not on the 6th floor and was seen by Arnold on the other side of the doors leading to this area 5-15 minutes before and the fact that OSwald's name appears first - as HARVEY LEE OSWALD on Elsbeth on the Police Roster of employees (which Lt Revill also uses in his report to Gannaway about Hosty talking to him in the basement about Oswald http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/27/2778-001.gif) makes if very likely that Oswald was encountered in the lobby - or Revill knew of Oswald and he was listed first with the wrong address. Carmine - Do you believe Ms Arnold and take into account the WCR/FBI refusal to allow her "evidence" to be heard or considered when determining the whereabouts of Owald between 11:50 and 12:30? (the WCR lied and says he was not seen from 11:50-12:30) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now