How Important is Bill Kelly's Thread?

[Vanessa Loney]

Thanks Carmine

But are you able to nominate any points that Sean has made that he hasn't substantiated?

For the sake of argument, let's say that is Oswald in the doorway. All those points you make re-witnesses etc would still make it perfectly possible for it to be him.

In fact, some might argue that the complete lack of any witness on the TSBD steps that day mentioning a man standing in the corner is in itself extremely telling. Prayerman is standing behind the door (which opens outwards btw) and is thus being a complete nuisance to anyone wanting to go in and out that door. He is also in a spot to be seen by everyone going in and out that door.

No-one at all has mentioned this man - yet he is there. Doesn't that raise some red flags with you?

PS Still would like to here what you consider an important thread, thanks.

[Greg Parker]

I had hoped that would be the end of my involvement in the matter.

It could have been, except that you keep inserting yourself into it.

This time however, others disagree with them as well.

Where are others disagreeing, Carmine?

Mark said "I believe Bill Kelly's thread to be quite important."

not the best guess using a blurry picture.

To reduce this thread of a 108 pages to being about "the best guess using a blurry picture" is disingenuous and insulting.

to ignore all the witnesses is nothing more than using the Commission's methods.

I guess you didn't understand the first time I explained this to you. No witness said Oswald was not there. No witness said anything at all about the person standing in that spot. We can take nothing from that. It is NOT evidence that is favorable to any particular theory or position. The most you may get away with drawing from it is that the person in that position went unnoticed.

If you still do not understand how that evidence does not help you, I again implore you to seek the advice of people you trust.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Vanessa Loney]

Now Carmine, I asked you first.

All I am asking for is one example where Sean hasn't substantiated his case. Bob Prudhomme has nominated the thread as important - others agree so I guess as the one who is arguing that the thread isn't substantiated I think the onus is on you to provide some examples of that of lack of substantiation.

If you were objecting to it being pinned on the basis of Mark Knight's case that that would open the floodgates then I would say 'fair enough'. But you seem to be saying its not important because it is not very well put together and I would disagree with that strongly.

I also would like to see a much better resolution of the film. Shouldn't we be banding together to see if we can't make that happen? Surely someone in the research community has the right computer?

I'll answer your questions after you answer mine.

[Vanessa Loney]

Hi Carmine

Well, I think even Sean says the picture is unclear (as we all do) so I don't think that is something that he hasn't substantiated. I was thinking that you were saying that the case he puts forward is unsubstantiated - so I'm wondering if you can give an example of that.

Like to join with me in calling for someone to come forward with the right computer or software or whatever is needed to improve the resolution?

[Vanessa Loney]

Hi Carmine

I think there's two issues here. One is the film (or photo) which we all agree needs a higher resolution. Although I think that it is significant that it is definitely not, not Oswald ie not a woman, not African-American, not a child but a white male about the right height with the right hair and the right clothes to be Oswald. But yes we need a better picture. Can we band together on this issue?

The other aspect is the case that Sean has put together underpinning his argument that this person is Oswald. I'm sorry if I'm getting confused here but I thought you said that the thread shouldn't be pinned because Sean hadn't substantiated his case. If you're going to make a claim like that then I think some examples are warranted.

Just so long as we keep our JFKFacts-honed manners about us I think we'll be fine.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I have an idea. Why don't we treat pinning a thread like warranty on a car, 200,000 views or 1,600 replies, which ever comes first, and the thread automatically gets pinned. That would weed out the majority of the nonsense from being pinned.

[Mark Knight]

Greg,

Maybe I'm getting old...but I'm a bit of a traditionalist in some respects. Andy and John never saw the need to pin forum threads, and I'd like to think I'm deferring to their previous display of wisdom.

I understand that the best, or the most intelligent, threads don't always rise to the top of the page. A few weeks back, when a certain thread concerning "Judith Very unBelievable" kept popping up to the top, I was almost ready to look for a way to keep that from happening. But then I realized that I'd be tampering with the very structures that made the EF as good as it has been in its day.

I wouldn't have a problem making judgments, to a degree, as to whether or not threads should be pinned. But sometimes my initial judgements would be flat-out wrong. Early on, I was nearly convinced that some of Robert Mady's posts [sorry to single you out, Robert...but you make a great example] were virtually worthless. But I've watched a couple of those threads turn into actual examinations of evidence, and unlike some other members, Robert Mady has been willing to modify his theory in areas where his original assumptions and assertions turned out to be contradicted by other facts and evidence. Robert's very enthusiastic for his theory, like many other members are with theirs...but he has a somewhat more open mind when asked for supporting evidence.

On the other hand, when Jim Root was driving the Edwin Walker thread, that one probably should have been pinned, if any were pinned. These days, the reason it keeps coming to the top is because people keep questioning the LACK of evidence contained in the later postings.

So for now, I'm fine with not pinning any posts, and letting things operate as they have since the inception of this discussion forum. Mine is not the only voice that would have to be involved with such a decision; I'm just the "visible dude" because I locked a thread the other night. [if I had my way, I would've preferred to continue in "stealth mode"...]

[Vanessa Loney]

Good idea Bob.

Must dash - I'll check in later.

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

Maybe I'm getting old...but I'm a bit of a traditionalist in some respects. Andy and John never saw the need to pin forum threads, and I'd like to think I'm deferring to their previous display of wisdom.

I understand that the best, or the most intelligent, threads don't always rise to the top of the page. A few weeks back, when a certain thread concerning "Judith Very unBelievable" kept popping up to the top, I was almost ready to look for a way to keep that from happening. But then I realized that I'd be tampering with the very structures that made the EF as good as it has been in its day.

I wouldn't have a problem making judgments, to a degree, as to whether or not threads should be pinned. But sometimes my initial judgements would be flat-out wrong. Early on, I was nearly convinced that some of Robert Mady's posts [sorry to single you out, Robert...but you make a great example] were virtually worthless. But I've watched a couple of those threads turn into actual examinations of evidence, and unlike some other members, Robert Mady has been willing to modify his theory in areas where his original assumptions and assertions turned out to be contradicted by other facts and evidence. Robert's very enthusiastic for his theory, like many other members are with theirs...but he has a somewhat more open mind when asked for supporting evidence.

On the other hand, when Jim Root was driving the Edwin Walker thread, that one probably should have been pinned, if any were pinned. These days, the reason it keeps coming to the top is because people keep questioning the LACK of evidence contained in the later postings.

So for now, I'm fine with not pinning any posts, and letting things operate as they have since the inception of this discussion forum. Mine is not the only voice that would have to be involved with such a decision; I'm just the "visible dude" because I locked a thread the other night. [if I had my way, I would've preferred to continue in "stealth mode"...]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Mark.

I disagree, but what's new?

I'll leave it that.

[Greg Parker]

Is it coincidence that you and Lee showed up and now want it pinned to the top?

I showed up because lies were being told about me by a person who thought he'd be safe to do so. I stayed because it's such an accommodating environment.

[Greg Parker]

Quote

Is it coincidence that you and Lee showed up and now want it pinned to the top?

I showed up because lies were being told about me by a person who thought he'd be safe to do so. I stayed because it's such an accommodating environment.

• Quote
• MultiQuote

Really,

Could you cite them? Here we go again. Did you not learn the first time? Greg your myth does not impress, you tried to push it and it failed. If I may be even more candid, it is the method of those with a weak idea to attack others who question the idea. So again prove your claims, about me, about your bad idea. I will wait for your response and check back later. Again the words are Mea Culpa.

I am sure you know what the hell you're talking about, Carmine, but it's alphabet soup to me.

You got yourself tied in semantic and logical knots before, and you seem bent on doing it again.

[Greg Parker]

edit: deleted duplicate post.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

I trust you can be reasonable. I will not be blamed again for "baiting" you. So good luck with your claims, I shall check back for evidence.

I hope we can speak more reasonably from here out on the matter.

Carmine, I still don't know what claims you're talking about,

I said I came here because lies were told about me. If you don't accept that claim; fine. I have already laid out the details in the past. I suspect you think everything is about you. I'm sorry, but it's not.

[Vanessa Loney]

Hi Carmine

Well, if we had a clear picture the issue would not just be substantiated but absolutely resolved - either it is Oswald or it's not. So I don't think the lack of a clear picture is a lack of a compelling argument (especially as this person cannot be ruled out as Oswald).

I think the lack of witnesses is a big problem for those that say that Prayerman was some random guy off the street. We can see in Weigman the TSBD employees streaming back into work - they are about to squash this guy in the doorway to get past him. Yet not one single witness mentions this stranger on the doorstep. Wouldn't he have stuck out as a suspicious character who wasn't supposed to be there?

As for Oswald saying he was in that building because he worked there. Yes, he clearly did say that. But we can't quite hear what question he has been asked (in my view) because his response about working in the building doesn't make much sense if he's responding to the "Did you shoot the President?" question. And the context of his response is very important.

I don't know Sean either but I wish he would come back on to the debates. So really you are saying that Sean does substantiate his case but the thread shouldn't be pinned because no threads should be pinned? I can live with that.

I have to say I'm a bit puzzled by your lack of enthusiasm for some sort of joint effort on getting a better resolution on the photo. I've been following the Prayerman debate for some time now hoping, and expecting, it to appear in the media. But there has been nothing - so seeing it progressed in any form would be great as far as I'm concerned.

I"m not sure what you mean by that last comment, Carmine. But can I just say, there are a lot of deep feelings about the assassination and most of us tend to get carried away at some time or other. I myself have used some foul language in some particularly trying moments. But I'm one of those annoying people who thinks that those who are on the same side of the debate should make maximum effort to get along. I have to say I don't really understand the personal politics at all.

[Greg Parker]

hoping, and expecting, it to appear in the media. But there has been nothing

I'm appalled, Vanessa. You mean to say that Canberra doesn't get the Central Western Daily? The Flagship (once 1,254 other publications fold) of the Fairfax empire?

Mr Parker said he believes Oswald was an innocent, set up as the assassin and says a photograph of a man he believes was Oswald and taken on the front steps of the Texas Book Depository building proves Oswald was on his lunch break as the accused originally told police. CWD Apr 22, 2014

From the comments section:

Thanks Tony. I give a lengthy explanation in the book for why I believe he has Asperger's (ability to learn languages quickly, weird accent, posture, lack of eye contact, dislike of small-talk, messy writing, high IQ etc etc).

Regarding the pic... we are not talking about the same photo. I agree with you that the person seen in Altgens is Lovelady. Here is the shot I'm referring to