James R Gordon Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 I am locking this thread for a day. Carmine Savastano, the criticisms made by other members that you do not engage in the discussion but circumvent the issues with language and opinion, appears – to me – to be valid. I can see that this is very frustrating to fellow members. The purpose of the locking is to give you, Carmine, time to marshal your ideas and proofs together. If after the thread is unlocked the debate continues in its present form then I will close the thread. It is not something I wish to do, but it appears – at present – nothing positive is being achieved from continuing this present debate and fellow members are clearly being irritated. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 This thread has now been unlocked. Hopefully debate will will be more positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Thanks James! I hope we an all agree that some sort of effort should be made to get the relevant films clarified so that this issue can finally be settled one way or another. With a little co-operation within the research community hopefully we'll actually get an answer. I just don't want to let this important issue drift any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Mr. Gordon, I am composing a response to cover all my concerns and problems with it. I shall post later. I appreciate you unlocking the thread and shall keep my commentary strictly on topic. Lee, I still disagree, yet I support a reasonable and open exchange of ideas. May the most evidence and reasonable ideas prevail. Just to clarify Carmine, will your composition cover "concerns and problems" with just the pinning of the thread - just the obtaining of a better quality picture - or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 It will include all the evidence I was instructed to marshall. I shall try to be as thorough as possible regarding the entire matter, in my view. I don't doubt your intention to be thorough, Carmine. Should I assume that by "entire matter", you intend covering the pinning AND any effort to get a clearer photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I shall leave it others and the admin to make that assessment. I merely wished to offer what was requested. I shall. Thank you for the clarification, Carmine. Could you please refresh my memory on what was requested of you? Specifically, does it cover your thoughts and/or opinions, ruminations, meditations, or computations on the issue of obtaining a clearer photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Thank you Carmine. You are quite obviously against the pinning of the thread. Could you please see your way clear however, to give a short, clear answer on whether you would support efforts to obtain a clearer picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Thank you Carmine. You are quite obviously against the pinning of the thread. Could you please see your way clear however, to give a short, clear answer on whether you would support efforts to obtain a clearer picture? Not a requirement. I wish you well. I have said all I wish to contribute. Good luck. Sorry. We we posting at the same time. The Prayer Man is similar to many other supposed "breakthroughs" coined by various people in the time since President Kennedy's death. These include the "Doorway Man", the "Badge Man", the "Black Dog Man", the "Red Bandana Man", the "Black Hole Man", among many others. All these ideas share a lack of verifiable evidence. They all are deficient and have not definitive proof but definite believers. The time has come to test the "Prayer Man" idea with substantial evidence. Your argument here boils down to saying "several dogs bit me. Therefore this one will to." It is a logical fallacy. No witness testimony in the immediate area supports Oswald's presence. Not a single witness identifies him in the area during the shots. Similar to "Doorway Man" claims of Billy Lovelady being Oswald, some claim the unknown "Prayer Man" is Oswald. Yet not a single witness ever mentions Oswald. No verifiable witness supports the "Prayer Man" idea, and thus neither does the witness evidence. i. ii. iii. iv. v. Witness Carolyn Arnold states, "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time President Kennedy was shot." vi. Ochus Campbell states "I definitely did not see Lee Harvey Oswald..." vii. Buell Frazier stated "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time President Kennedy was shot".viii Otis Williams recalls seeing him inside the building perhaps, but never outside.ix William Shelly again reiterates he like others he "...did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time Pres. Kennedy was shot."x Joe Molina never saw Lee Harvey Oswald that day.xi Geraldine Reid states Oswald was not outside the building following the shots, but inside.xii Pauline Sanders never saw Oswald.xiii This is another logical fallacy. It is called "argument from silence" where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. None of them saw Oswald at the time of the shots. No one mentioned seeing anyone at all in the PM position. So you are clearly using the ABSENCE of evidence to support your conclusion. The CORRECT conclusion from this LACK of evidence is that Oswald could be PM. Additional feasibly contending evidence includes the verbal statement of Lee Harvey Oswald himself. This is asserting a particular intended meaning on Oswald's part when his actual meaning is lost to a muddied context. It must rate as another logical fallacy. Edited March 23, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Just because the witnesses said they didn't see him, doesn't mean he wasn't there. If he went out to the front whilst the witnesses were watching the parade, and then went back in before they turned around, then they obviously wouldn't see him, despite the fact that he was there. Where's the dispute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I still contend that anyone who is opposed to any attempt to solve this Prayer Man question by using modern technology and the ORIGINAL images has an agenda of some sort, and doesn't want the truth to be known...if, indeed, we can come to a conclusion using modern technology. The truth is, there's a chance that even the best of modern technology might not provide an answer that is beyond question. But to oppose even trying...that's simply a case of willful ignorance. And to me, willful ignorance indicates an agenda of some sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Martin Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) I still contend that anyone who is opposed to any attempt to solve this Prayer Man question by using modern technology and the ORIGINAL images has an agenda of some sort, and doesn't want the truth to be known...if, indeed, we can come to a conclusion using modern technology. The truth is, there's a chance that even the best of modern technology might not provide an answer that is beyond question. But to oppose even trying...that's simply a case of willful ignorance. And to me, willful ignorance indicates an agenda of some sort. I agree completely. If a group of people received a treasure map and found the clues a bit obscure, I can see them discussing every leg of the hunt. After the first few legs wound up at pointers indicating a correct interpretation, excitement would certainly mount. Some of the group might grumble about some of the interpretations but they continue anyway. Eventually they arrive at the rock under which the treasure chest lays. At this point the members who complained about misinterpreting the clues say they've got it wrong. Should they go back and double check other interpretations? Why not simply lift the rock to see if there's any treasure there rather than retracing all the steps on the map? That's where we are now. It does not matter who it is beside the door. I believe even those who think Oswald shot Kennedy would be happy to have this issue settled. The enhanced film may show us it is not Oswald and the doubters can have a feather in their cap. Without the enhancement each side will simply continue the arguments ad infinitum. Edited March 23, 2015 by Terry Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 By all means, this thread should be pinned, and we should make every effort to not only identify PM, but every other person on the steps of the TSBD. Remember, it is not only the exoneration of Oswald that hangs in the balance. I do not believe there is a statute of limitations in the USA for murder, and there are several people, reputedly on the steps, whom I believed perjured themselves in their testimonies to the Warren Commission, and their presence (or lack of) at the time of the assassination could be enough to bring them into the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Beautiful analogy there Terry, I agree completely. And welcome to the EF btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Hi Carmine, I agree completely with your statement. Nice we can agree on something. You are using the words 'evidence' and 'evidentiary' in the same way they might be used in a trial by a lawyer. We are not there yet but maybe we could be once we get PM identified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 So are we talking about getting Gary Mack to cooperate by allowing original films in the possession of the 6th floor museum to be examined with new techniques? 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