Jump to content
The Education Forum

Prayer Man is a Man


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

 IMO.... if the lady in the image above was claimed to be PP, and everyone agreed that Oswald was lets say, in the lunch room, then this would be a home run done deal, no questions asked. That lady matches perfectly, it is only the willingness of researchers to believe that its Oswald that changes things. 

Jake:

I would not subscribe to the possibility that the lady depicted in Denis's photograph could be Prayer Man. Please find here a few spots that raise doubts. The colour of lady's shirt appears to be a problem too - the right side which is in shadow would be too dark to match Prayer Man's shirt. However, we would need to know much more about this lady to be able to probe this possibility a bit more. For instance, the lady does not seem to be tall enough to be 5'9 3/4'', Prayer Man's body height. On a different note, this lady appears to have photographed Dealey Plaza and no one seems to have seen any pictures...

 

norisetteswoman-1.jpg?resize=438,438

Your other comment referred to Buell Wesley Frazier who did not identify Prayer Man as Lee Oswald. I did study Buell Wesley Frazier thoroughly over the years, including his new book "Steering Truth". Answering your point would require me to write a lengthy essay whiich I would not do here and today. Very briefly, in the light of  Mr. Frazier's ever-changing testimonies about essential aspects of the case and considering the state of his mind in the context of the assassination events, both back then and now, I would not take Mr. Frazier's lack of identification of Prayer Man as Lee Oswald as a critical validation of Prayer Man's identity.    

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 397
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thank you Andrej for the reply, I must admit I have not read 'steering truth' but only seen the interviews and conferences he's done. All of those seem very straight and consistent to me bar a few small details. I see myself as having a good radar for BS and I just don't detect anything with Frazier. Furthermore, I worry that having narratives and premises built on calling witnesses dishonest or inferring that they are bad actors delegitimises any and all lines of enquiry as regards objective, logical and scientific research. I.e if you call Frazier a L-i.Ar then we should call it a day because no one will ever find any truth and alls we're really doing is indulging a passion for armchair detection. That is not to say that we shouldn't identify bad actors but we need to know when to draw the line. My suggesting for drawing the line is to accept what people say unless you can prove that quote to be inaccurate OR there is massive evidence to the contrary. Beyond that its speculation and narrative building to assume someone dishonest or inaccurate. 

 Hair - if you turned that lady 20 degrees to the left you would have PP's hairline exactly, look at how she appears to ' recede' up and back. The thickness behind the ear is there and the blob below the ear. I say blob because the shadow on PP behind the head merges with the hair. it matches perfectly. I think the lower arrow in the left image is meant to suggest longer hair than in the right but in a non cropped image you can see that its the shirt collar. 

 Shirt - they are both mid to dark colours, beyond that I don't think we can make any assumptions given the image quality and extreme contrast in the images. 

Height - I have seen the height analysis of PP but have to confess I don't think it stands up ( ba-dum !) .  The person there is shorter and more petite than Frazier or the man in front.  

 Like you I'd like to know who that lady is but even if she wasn't there the point stands that she fits the Darnell image perfectly. Further, we have the hair 'blob' issue and the darkness of the trouser if it were Oswald. I must also reconfirm the glaring issue. ... NO ONE said they saw him there. Not a single witness. The most famous man in America that year, people allegedly saw him here there and everywhere yet no one saw him standing casually on the steps of the TSBD for a good duration of time ? people who worked with him ? passers by ? Buell Frazier is obfuscating and is 'in on it' or he didn't notice his colleague and friend at all ? 

 IMO we need to draw a line under this. Mountains of analysis and whole websites dedicated to an issue do not make the fallacy true. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrej -- yes your cautions are good on the timing analyses.

On a different minor point, at an earlier stage you devoted a little attention to a "greenish looking shirt" Charles Givens said Oswald was wearing, according to the Warren Report, a color that no one else gave for Oswald that day.

I would like to suggest that that is a mistake in the Warren Report, and that rather than consider that green color as data that needs explanation, it is a simple typo in the Warren Commission transcription process, and Givens never claimed any green color. The statement at issue from the published Warren Report (emphasis added):

"Mr. Belin. Do you remember what he [Oswald] was wearing?

"Mr. Givens. Well, I believe it was kind of a greenish looking shirt and pants was about the same color as his shirt, practically the same thing he wore all the time he worked there. He never changed clothes the whole time he worked there, and he would wear a grey looking jacket."

"Mr. Belin. All right. You saw him at 8:30 on the first floor?

"Mr. Givens: Yes, sir."

As it stands, Givens appears to be saying not only that Oswald was wearing a shirt that looked greenish, but pants too ("about the same color as his shirt")--and that Oswald always wore green ("practically the same thing he wore all the time"), every day he worked there. That makes absolutely no sense, with not a single other witness saying anything like that.

Curiously a handwritten "greyish" in cursive can easily be misread as "greenish". Try writing out those two words in handwriting (I don't know how to illustrate it here) and notice how the "y" in handwritten cursive "greyish" could easily be misread by someone as "en" making "greenish", depending on how "greyish" is written in rapid handwriting. Five pages later in Givens' testimony in the Warren Report on p. 351 I noticed the same phenomenon again:

"Mr. Belin. What did he [Oswald] say to you?

"Mr. Givens. I say, 'It's near lunch time.' He said, 'No, sir. When you get downstairs, dose [sic] the gate to the elevator.' That meant the elevator on the west side, you can pull both gates down and it will come up by itself."

It reads "dose" where clearly what was said was "close" the gate. But handwritten "close" was misread by some transcriber or typist as "dose" because cursive "cl" can easily be misread as cursive "d", accounting for the mistaken "dose". The error was not an error in hearing the word wrongly, nor was the error in hitting a wrong nearby typewriter key by mistake. Instead the word "close" was heard correctly and handwritten correctly as "close", but the handwriting was mistakenly read as "dose" in the transcription process to appear in the published Warren Report as "dose the gate".

I believe this provides the best explanation for the "greenish" looking shirt--Givens never said "greenish", he said "grayish" and that was handwritten "greyish" and mistakenly transcribed as "greenish" from the handwritten "greyish". With this it becomes sensible, in keeping with what Givens says was "practically the same thing" that Oswald "wore all the time", since it is known without controversy (undisputed) that Oswald's pants at work were gray, not green. But it was not just Oswald's pants at work that were gray, Oswald's jacket worn to work that day and other days also was gray (per witness testimony and argument, though that is disputed with the Warren Report saying differently).

There is some confusion in other witness statements in which Oswald's gray jacket is called a gray "shirt", even though I am unaware that any actually gray shirt was found in Oswald's belongings, and the only two shirts he was known to have worn or claimed to have worn that day (C151 and C150) were brown and maroon-reddish, neither gray. This confusion between "gray shirt" and "gray jacket" comes up in Bonnie Ray Williams' and Whaley's testimony as well. Bonnie Ray Williams said, "to the best of his recollection, Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing a grey corduroy pair of pants and a greyish looking sport shirt with long sleeves on November 22, 1963" (FBI interview report, 12/5/63). I believe this is already been generally understood, not too controversially, as Williams likely referring to Oswald's grey jacket even if the FBI report reads "shirt". 

Similarly if Givens' "greenish" is corrected to "greyish", Givens would be saying, just like the report of Bonnie Ray Williams, that Oswald's "shirt" (sic--meaning jacket) was "greyish looking" matching his gray pants, the same as Oswald always wore every day, "a grey looking jacket", with Givens basically repeating (or clarifying) in his answer a second time when he said Oswald "would wear a grey looking jacket".

Bonnie Ray Williams: "grey corduroy pair of pants and a greyish looking sport shirt with long sleeves"

Charles Givens: "greenish [sic --> greyish] looking shirt and pants was about the same color as his shirt ... practically the same thing he wore all the time ... he would wear a grey looking jacket"

Buell Wesley Frazier: "It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning."  

William Whaley (cab), FBI interview report 12/5/63: "[he] was dressed in gray khaki pants . . . He had on a dark colored shirt with some light color in it. The shirt had long sleeves and the top two or three buttons were unbuttoned. The color of the shirt [sic] nearly matched the pants, but was somewhat darker."

William Whaley (cab), 1964 testimony to Warren Commission: "he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants."

Givens' "greenish" looking shirt on Oswald therefore is well explained as a typo for "greyish" which Givens actually said and it actually referred to Oswald's jacket, in line with these other similar witness statements. There never was a color green calling for explanation with respect to Oswald's shirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Andrej -- yes your cautions are good on the timing analyses.

On a different minor point, at an earlier stage you devoted a little attention to a "greenish looking shirt" Charles Givens said Oswald was wearing, according to the Warren Report, a color that no one else gave for Oswald that day.

I would like to suggest that that is a mistake in the Warren Report, and that rather than consider that green color as data that needs explanation, it is a simple typo in the Warren Commission transcription process, and Givens never claimed any green color. The statement at issue from the published Warren Report (emphasis added):

"Mr. Belin. Do you remember what he [Oswald] was wearing?

"Mr. Givens. Well, I believe it was kind of a greenish looking shirt and pants was about the same color as his shirt, practically the same thing he wore all the time he worked there. He never changed clothes the whole time he worked there, and he would wear a grey looking jacket."

"Mr. Belin. All right. You saw him at 8:30 on the first floor?

"Mr. Givens: Yes, sir."

As it stands, Givens appears to be saying not only that Oswald was wearing a shirt that looked greenish, but pants too ("about the same color as his shirt")--and that Oswald always wore green ("practically the same thing he wore all the time"), every day he worked there. That makes absolutely no sense, with not a single other witness saying anything like that.

Curiously a handwritten "greyish" in cursive can easily be misread as "greenish". Try writing out those two words in handwriting (I don't know how to illustrate it here) and notice how the "y" in handwritten cursive "greyish" could easily be misread by someone as "en" making "greenish", depending on how "greyish" is written in rapid handwriting. Five pages later in Givens' testimony in the Warren Report on p. 351 I noticed the same phenomenon again:

"Mr. Belin. What did he [Oswald] say to you?

"Mr. Givens. I say, 'It's near lunch time.' He said, 'No, sir. When you get downstairs, dose [sic] the gate to the elevator.' That meant the elevator on the west side, you can pull both gates down and it will come up by itself."

It reads "dose" where clearly what was said was "close" the gate. But handwritten "close" was misread by some transcriber or typist as "dose" because cursive "cl" can easily be misread as cursive "d", accounting for the mistaken "dose". The error was not an error in hearing the word wrongly, nor was the error in hitting a wrong nearby typewriter key by mistake. Instead the word "close" was heard correctly and handwritten correctly as "close", but the handwriting was mistakenly read as "dose" in the transcription process to appear in the published Warren Report as "dose the gate".

I believe this provides the best explanation for the "greenish" looking shirt--Givens never said "greenish", he said "grayish" and that was handwritten "greyish" and mistakenly transcribed as "greenish" from the handwritten "greyish". With this it becomes sensible, in keeping with what Givens says was "practically the same thing" that Oswald "wore all the time", since it is known without controversy (undisputed) that Oswald's pants at work were gray, not green. But it was not just Oswald's pants at work that were gray, Oswald's jacket worn to work that day and other days also was gray (per witness testimony and argument, though that is disputed with the Warren Report saying differently).

There is some confusion in other witness statements in which Oswald's gray jacket is called a gray "shirt", even though I am unaware that any actually gray shirt was found in Oswald's belongings, and the only two shirts he was known to have worn or claimed to have worn that day (C151 and C150) were brown and maroon-reddish, neither gray. This confusion between "gray shirt" and "gray jacket" comes up in Bonnie Ray Williams' and Whaley's testimony as well. Bonnie Ray Williams said, "to the best of his recollection, Lee Harvey Oswald was wearing a grey corduroy pair of pants and a greyish looking sport shirt with long sleeves on November 22, 1963" (FBI interview report, 12/5/63). I believe this is already been generally understood, not too controversially, as Williams likely referring to Oswald's grey jacket even if the FBI report reads "shirt". 

Similarly if Givens' "greenish" is corrected to "greyish", Givens would be saying, just like the report of Bonnie Ray Williams, that Oswald's "shirt" (sic--meaning jacket) was "greyish looking" matching his gray pants, the same as Oswald always wore every day, "a grey looking jacket", with Givens basically repeating (or clarifying) in his answer a second time when he said Oswald "would wear a grey looking jacket".

Bonnie Ray Williams: "grey corduroy pair of pants and a greyish looking sport shirt with long sleeves"

Charles Givens: "greenish [sic --> greyish] looking shirt and pants was about the same color as his shirt ... practically the same thing he wore all the time ... he would wear a grey looking jacket"

Buell Wesley Frazier: "It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning."  

William Whaley (cab), FBI interview report 12/5/63: "[he] was dressed in gray khaki pants . . . He had on a dark colored shirt with some light color in it. The shirt had long sleeves and the top two or three buttons were unbuttoned. The color of the shirt [sic] nearly matched the pants, but was somewhat darker."

William Whaley (cab), 1964 testimony to Warren Commission: "he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants."

Givens' "greenish" looking shirt on Oswald therefore is well explained as a typo for "greyish" which Givens actually said and it actually referred to Oswald's jacket, in line with these other similar witness statements. There never was a color green calling for explanation with respect to Oswald's shirt.

Excellent work Greg, that's put that to bed. How do you reconcile Oswald saying that he wore a reddish shirt that day and there not being one and no evidence of that being true ? That statement seems anomalous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

Height - I have seen the height analysis of PP but have to confess I don't think it stands up ( ba-dum !) .  The person there is shorter and more petite than Frazier or the man in front.  

Jake:

you appear to have already made your mind about Prayer Man not being Lee Oswald and if you would like to end the story, you are free to do it. Others are free to explore this possibility further. I was not prompting you to write on this topic, and I did not even reopen it.

It is not enough to say that the person in question is "shorter and more petite" than Frazier, you would need to provide a qualified estimate of Prayer Man's body height while also giving details of your methods. Prayer Man stood effectively one step below Frazier and therefore, he naturally would appear short if you would assume he stood on the top landing. However, Prayer Man could not stand on the top landing because his figure would not fit that of Prayer Man. This is something which can be argued until you see a 3D reconstruction of Darnell doorway. There are precisely defined distances of various body features (e.g., right elbow) from the doorway landmarks and those only hold if the person in question would stand on the first step below the top landing. There is only one possible solution for how and where Prayer Man stood, not two or more solutions. This is because we see a snapshot of space and people (objects) with real dimensions recorded at one particular moment in time. 

If you want to say that I erred in my reconctruction of the doorway and Prayer Man's location and height, please show your empirical analysis that refute it, not your subjective impressions. I am more than happy to check your analysis.

As per Buell Wesley Frazier, please see my earlier posts (and other people's comments in those threads) although they do not cover my more recent thoughts on Mr. Frazier. I am not calling Mr. Frazier a l.i.a.r as there may be other explanation for Mr. Frazier changing his accounts of his and Lee Oswald's movements over the years. 

Late edit:

One more reason for Prayer Man not being able to stand on the top step are the body proportions. Having forearms arms extended in front of the chest as Prayer Man had would give a different height of arms in person 5'2'' standing on the top step and a person 5'9'' standing with one foot on the step below. The top of their heads would be at the same height, on the plane crossing Frazier's lower aspect of the chin or top of his shoulders. However, the shorter person 5'2'' standing on the top landing would have his arms higher than the tall person 5'9'' standing on the step below. If you do not trust my analysis, you can always take a selfie of yourself in Prayer Man posture, extract your figure from the picture and overlay it onto Darnell's still in such a way that the top of your figure would exactly match Prayer Man's top of the head.

In the meantime, please find here a graphic illustration of the unequal arms heights in two people, one 5'2' and the other 5'9'', separated by a height of one step (7 1/2'').

reducedarms-2.jpg?resize=438,438

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I was a bit confrontational, your work is excellent and its this sort of analysis we need more of . 

 Height - I appreciate that they aren't on the same step but even so PP looks smaller and rounder shouldered. That is however a subjective analysis like you say, but we don't know that someone else in that vicinity wasn't 5'9 ( potentially with heels on) and the work you have done can not be accurate to more than 2" given the images we have/ posture etc..

 I found this image, which is the clearest I've seen and it shows clearly that the person has long hair. It doesn't merge with the shadows. Its glaring issues like these that when ignored and other issues looked at under a microscope I start to question validity ( I pasted the link but the image appears.... In the actual linked image taken from ' Prayer - man' website you can blow it up and see very clearly that the hair is long and is not the same as the shade in the entrance way. 

 Also.. Oswald most striking physical feature is his extra long neck.. what happened to that ? the shoulders look inline with the chin of PP. 

 I wouldn't say my mind is completely made up and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of course. Oswald did say that he was on the steps yes... but he also said that the Rambler belonged to Ruth Paine. More importantly if he was a Patsy its very likely that he would start to formulate a story to prove his innocence, rather than giveaway his involvement. Especially if his orders weren't straight from government agencies, I.E he was dealing with cubans and aiding hitmen . 

 Edit - re witnesses... PP is very easy to see here... there are thirty people in this image, just this one snap shot. Not a single one saw Oswald there. I estimate that easily 60-70 people moved around that area and would have a nice clear view of the door way, in full colour, and from only 5-20 yards. Its incomprehensible to me that all of these people could have been interviewed and pursuaded to not say anything or LI-E. It is impossible that NONE of those 60 people would have seen him. 

 PM_003704_GIMP_2_8_60_Contrast-1.jpg

Edited by Jake Hammond
mistake in text.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Excellent work Greg, that's put that to bed. How do you reconcile Oswald saying that he wore a reddish shirt that day and there not being one and no evidence of that being true ? That statement seems anomalous. 

Jake thanks on the first comment. On the second, the question, I do not understand the question at all. C151, a maroon-reddish colored shirt, was found at Oswald's rooming house in Oak Cliff, color photographs of it have appeared in earlier posts on this thread, two color photographs, one a then-new color photograph of C151 obtained by Pat Speer in 2016--this was the first color photograph ever made public of C151--and then after that the original color photograph of C151 which was published in black-and-white in the Warren Report also came to public attention for the first time. Both of these color photos of C151 are clearly reddish. Oswald's claim that he wore a reddish button-down-collar shirt that day is in agreement with what is known of the color of the button-down-collar shirt C151. Your statement might reflect accurately the state of known evidence prior to 2016 before Pat Speer obtained and posted for the first time a color photo of C151, but the objection is obsolete after 2016. Check "4b" on Pat Speer's website, "Threads of Evidence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Jake thanks on the first comment. On the second, the question, I do not understand the question at all. C151, a maroon-reddish colored shirt, was found at Oswald's rooming house in Oak Cliff, color photographs of it have appeared in earlier posts on this thread, two color photographs, one a then-new color photograph of C151 obtained by Pat Speer in 2016--this was the first color photograph ever made public of C151--and then after that the original color photograph of C151 which was published in black-and-white in the Warren Report also came to public attention for the first time. Both of these color photos of C151 are clearly reddish. Oswald's claim that he wore a reddish button-down-collar shirt that day is in agreement with what is known of the color of the button-down-collar shirt C151. Your statement might reflect accurately the state of known evidence prior to 2016 before Pat Speer obtained and posted for the first time a color photo of C151, but the objection is obsolete after 2016. Check "4b" on Pat Speer's website, "Threads of Evidence".

Thank you, I must admit that I hadn't looked at prayer man or CE151 for a few years and although I've seen the colour images of 151 I hadn't linked it all together in my mind. This is perhaps because it is more brown than ' reddish' but I think we can utilise some artistic license. My mistake. 

Edited by Jake Hammond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The major problem with that is Truly, Baker, Reid, and Oswald himself said it happened in their various statements and testimony, and I cannot fathom Truly and Baker being suborned to knowingly perjure themselves under oath and stick to that story for the rest of their lives, for such a minor convoluted reason.

Greg,

It is not a minor convoluted reason.  It is the primary reason to get Oswald out of the doorway or off the street and put him in the TSBD with time for him to be on the 6th floor and then come down to the 2nd floor break room after the assassination. 

Truly and Baker, I discount as creditable along with Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady.  The 2nd floor break room story comes after Baker said he and Truly went up the steps and met someone on the 3rd or 4th floor.  That story was dropped and not mentioned again.  If the 2nd floor break room story is true then why didn't Baker mention it the first time around.  Baker followed Truly's lead on that story.  He had to go with what was the official story that was being cooked at the time.  Otherwise, he would be in trouble with the DPD, a very sinister organization.

Baker had to have passed Oswald/Prayer Man as he entered the TSBD.  Both would have seen Oswald there so the man on the 3rd or 4th floor must have been someone else whose identity needed to be covered up.

Truly was part of the plan and cover up.  A good article to read is The Spider’s Web: The Texas School Book Depository and the Dallas Conspiracy By William Weston  This article by Weston puts the TSBD and its personnel in a bad light as far as drugs and gun running goes. 

And, it explains why Truly may have been part of the plan to begin with.

For Prayer Man to become Oswald on the 2nd floor, he would have to gone into the building prior to Baker arriving at the TSBD and ran up the steps since the elevator was blocked on the 5th floor.  And, Baker, according to accounts did that quickly.  It doesn't leave any time for Prayer Man to be filmed at the doorway and then get ahead of Baker and Truly to run up to the 2nd floor.  An alternative way to get to the 2nd floor is through the employees, of the various TSBD companies, first floor elevator.  It was working at the time and near the entrance of the TSBD, I believe.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

On a different note, this lady appears to have photographed Dealey Plaza and no one seems to have seen any pictures...

That is common in the aftermath of the assassination.  There were perhaps hundreds along the parade route that lost their film of the event.  Only what we have today was allowed after they had been altered.  The AMIPA film is the only film I know of that escaped the dragnet of the Secret Service, FBI, Dallas police, County Sheriffs, and CIA of collecting and destroying the films and photos.  Most of this was done at the developers of films and photos.  If this was not the case, we would have more than just a handful of low-quality altered films and photos on Main Street.

On Main, Houston, and Elm I can count at least 14 unknown photographers.  There are probably more further up on Main and on Houston which we don't get to see much of.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Denis is it correct you are identifying the right photo as taken 20 minutes after the shooting? Where are you getting the black and white photo on the left? Is that woman identified, what are those vehicles in the background, and is it verified that photo is from Dealey Plaza that day? At about what time? 

The B&W image from of a TV footage, KLRD. You can view it on YouTube. It is Dealey Plaza. When did the fire trucks arrive? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is relevant here: on the issue of the second-floor encounter, Barry Ernest, author of The Girl on the Stairs, gives little-known or not-previously-known additional supporting the credibility of the witnesses who said the encounter did occur, here: https://thegirlonthestairs.wordpress.com/2021/03/29/the-lunchroom-encounter/. In this post on Berry Ernest's blog:

  • Barry Ernest tells of a Philadelphia reporter who very early on the morning of Nov 23, 1963, tried to reach Roy Truly at home. Truly's wife answered and said Truly had already left to go to the TSBD, but Truly's wife talked to the reporter. "The previous evening--shortly after 7 p.m.--he [Mr. Truly] related to her [Mrs. Truly] how he and a policeman had met Oswald in a second floor lunchroom not long after the shooting." The reporter, named Adrian Lee, had earlier been verified to Barry Ernest as having been in contact with Truly, by Truly, in March 1968. 
  • Barry Ernest tells of interviewing Lt. Carl Day in 1999 and Day saying--referring to before 3 pm Fri Nov 22--"I took the gun [6th floor rifle] back to the department, locked it up, and returned to the Depository. I spoke with Truly then, who related the story of running up to the second floor after the shots and seeing Oswald standing at the coke machine."
  • In comments following the post, attention was called to a Sixth Floor Museum oral history interview by Karen Westbrook telling of employees on the 2nd floor gathered after the assassination, and her supervisor, Mrs. Reid, telling her and other fellow employees at that time--about 2 pm on Friday, minutes after the event--of seeing Oswald come into her office area holding a coke, asking Mrs. Reid what the excitement was, and Mrs. Reid having told Oswald the president had been shot--with link to the Karen Westbrook interview; the Mrs. Reid part starts at 12:35: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=karen+westbrook+sixth+floor+museum&docid=608015258633724565&mid=09085A0F3F7C5A2A8C5909085A0F3F7C5A2A8C59&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Barry Ernest comments: "I suppose the point of all this is that if the second floor lunchroom incident was fictitious, it certainly had to be invented rather quickly. It had to be thought up, pulled together, and brought into line--rehearsed, one might say--with a handful of consenting adults prior to Truly telling his wife about it shortly after his arrival home at 7 o'clock that very night".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 6:35 AM, Jake Hammond said:

PM_003704_GIMP_2_8_60_Contrast-1.jpg

When this photo is enlarged, what is that row of light-colored, button-like decorations running down PP's clothing, from the neck on the person's left front to the waist?  Are those  "buttons" (artificial flowers?) on one side of a V-shaped placket that runs from shoulders to waist, on what looks to be an overgarment, such as a woman's sweater? 

If these are buttons, and some of the lower ones along the V are functional, then they're on the proper side for a woman's top.

Or are these all anomalies of light and resolution?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...