Great New Movie Spells out the Case for Oswald as Prayer Man

[Robert Prudhomme]

If you look closely, Baker crosses just behind the signal light post on his way toward the TSBD curb/front steps.

His path appears to be somewhere close to the red line I have drawn in.

If you go to this link, I have stabilized the Darnell footage (labeled Truly-Baker gif) to give you a better look at Baker crossing just behind the signal light.

https://spideroak.com/browse/share/JFKFILES/JFKVIDEOS

password: assassination

chris

Thanks for that, Chris. That is one of the clearest versions of the film I have ever seen. If only Darnell had kept his camera on the TSBD steps for two more seconds.

One thing that can be seen very plainly in this gif, and something I wish I had the skills to enlarge, is a person standing directly in front of PM, and one or two steps down. He is facing the camera, and as Baker approaches, he appears to rise up, as if he was bending over to converse with the person in front of and below him on the steps, and the approach of Baker has caught his attention.

Could this be Lovelady? The position would be about right, if Roy Lewis had just vacated this position, and was now seen by the traffic light pole, and Billy Lovelady had moved to the west side of the steps (from near the centre) to get a closer look at the commotion to the west. He appears to have on a shirt similar to Lovelady's, and what we can see of his hair resembles Lovelady's.

Any way to get a closer look at this person? (hint hint)

P.S.

Anyone with sharp eyes able to spot Bill Shelley's pompadour in this gif?

[Chris Davidson]

Robert,

A time lapse of 12 frames for the Lovelady pop-up.

I believe he is a very good candidate for him.

As for better quality, it would probably be close to PM results.

chris

Edited December 17, 2015 by Chris Davidson

[Richard Gilbride]

#223 Prudhomme: The crazy thing about Baker's testimony is that he actually states the pigeons were flying up to the roof...

#224 Gilbride (ribbing): That's not what I saw in the movie [JFK].

I must express my opinion that this research into what Baker did off-camera, immediately after this film clip, is a waste of time. Researcheritis, a highly-contagious pathogen, is back with us. And gobbling victims like hapless Christmas geese.

1) Baker's March 20th re-enactment brought him to the top of the landing 15 seconds after the shots.

2) The aggregate of the filmed interview, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, the lack of Biffle-story corroboration (to mention 4 things)- these things oblige us to dismiss completely any notion that the lunchroom incident was hoaxed.

This means that we are obliged to consider every item of related evidence through the lens of the incident's reality.

The hoaxers have never presented a position paper detailing their argument. By contrast, I have 1) initiated a thread at the old ROKC forum to challenge their contention 2) written an essay defending the incident at the old forum 3) invested 11 pages in a section in a new essay to further discuss this debate, and hammer home my point.

You must juxtapose Baker's timeline with Adams' timeline. Whatever Baker did immediately off-camera, it must add up to 20ish seconds in order to allow Adams to run out of the warehouse unnoticed. The first couple of the 11 pages call attention to this requirement.

And not only that, reasons must be offered as to why Adams' "big black man" was standing approximately by the east elevator, but Baker's "large black man" was sitting when he & Truly encountered him. The reason proferred in my new essay is that Baker encountered Troy West, who was at his habitual lunch spot, and that Adams encountered West when he had stood up afterwards to see what was going on. (This, by the way, occurred after the lunchroom incident)

To counter my proferred solution, you are required to find a more natural fit for the data we are presented (from The Girl on the Stairs).

And, proffer a reasonable explanation as to why Baker would "fake" a 15 second re-enactment on March 20th.

Do you still believe there is recoverable gold in the vein you are prospecting? In that 1/4 - 1/2 second of film?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Richard

What is your opinion on Victoria Adams testifying that she and Sandra Styles saw Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley on the first floor, as they emerged from the staircase?

"Mr. BELIN - When you got to the bottom of the first floor, did you see anyone there as you entered the first floor from the stairway?

Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Who did you see?
Miss ADAMS - Mr. Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BELIN - Where did you see them on the first floor?
Miss ADAMS - Well, this is the stairs, and this is the Houston Street dock that I went out. They were approximately in this position here, so I don't know how you would describe that.
Mr. BELIN - You are looking now at a first floor plan or diagram of the Texas School Book Depository, and you have pointed to a position where you encountered Bill Lovelady and Mr. Bill Shelley?
Miss ADAMS - That's correct.
Mr. BELIN - It would be slightly east of the front of the east elevator, and probably as far south as the length of the elevator, is that correct?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir."

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Do you still believe there is recoverable gold in the vein you are prospecting? In that 1/4 - 1/2 second of film?"

LOL I just read that. I thought I was on the wrong forum for a second. I frequent a couple of prospecting forums, too.

[Clive Largey]

Watch Baker's left arm very closely.

Held out as he approaches RT then quickly snapped high behind him as he moved past him.

Doesn't it appear as though he pushes RT's arm deliberately, almost violently?

Then Truly must have been in his way.

Now again with his feet.

If he was knocked off balance immediately after that event and he then spots the curb, his footing would have to be adjusted to accommodate. Thus I would argue that his next two steps are not the best indication of his true path.

[Richard Gilbride]

Well, Robert, I go with Barry Ernest's information in The Girl on the Stairs, that Vickie Adams and Sandra Styles both denied several times that they'd seen Shelley & Lovelady. Support for that is found in S & L's lack of clarity as to whether and when they saw Adams on the 1st floor post-assassination. The inference is that David Belin confabulated this part of the transcript. In order to retard their descent, & thereby explain why they didn't see/hear any sign of Oswald fleeing the nest. I think that when they testified, S & L knew they were being written into the 1st-floor script and played along with the Belin confabulation.

I recall looking through some Tony Fratini photocopies this past summer at jfkassassinationforum, he had the Belin-handnotated transcripts and could show how Belin was being deceptive. I didn't download them because I had been in agreement on that for a long time; I forget the name of the thread, it was probably one that he or Colin Crow had started. It may have been in Fratini's "Arnold Rowland and the two men on the 6th floor". But he makes a convincing case, on top of what Ernest had to offer. The thread is a 90-pager or so, but a couple of pages have some big chunks of these photocopied transcripts on display, so you might key on that & that would get you through the pages much more quickly.

There's some gold at that forum, although some of it was put there by fools.

[Thomas Graves]

Watch Baker's left arm very closely.

Held out as he approaches RT then quickly snapped high behind him as he moved past him.

Doesn't it appear as though he pushes RT's arm deliberately, almost violently?

Then Truly must have been in his way.

Now again with his feet.

If he was knocked off balance immediately after that event and he then spots the curb, his footing would have to be adjusted to accommodate. Thus I would argue that his next two steps are not the best indication of his true path.

Clive,

Baker's left arm is swinging back and forth the whole time. Just like mine did when I ran the 100-yard dash, the 220-yard dash, the 440-yard dash, and the 120-yard high hurdles in high school. Oh yeah, and the 440-yard relay.

--Tommy

PS I think when we look at the "Couch Darnell Synchronized" (google that) GIF, we can see that Baker runs from his motorcycle towards the TSBD at a pretty sharp angle. I would argue that if he intended to run down to the intersection of Elm and Houston to confer with a policeman or two about the pigeons and / or where the shots had come from, he would have run across Elm Street Extension at a less sharp angle, i.e. in a more direct line towards the intersection.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Clive Largey]

Here is something to think about. How many times in a 50 year period does the following happen in the space of a minute?

1. The POTUS goes by the TSBD in a limo.

2. Three rifle shots are heard in Dealey Plaza.

3. A uniformed, white helmeted motorcycle cop roars up to the curb, hops off his motorcycle and goes tearing up the steps of the TSBD.

Kind of a semi-memorable moment in time, no?

Let's assume Pauline Sanders actually did see Baker go up the steps, as the FBI stated she did in their report of 24/11/63. As she seems to be the only witness on the steps who saw Baker, do you think she just calmly said to herself "Oh my, well, you certainly don't see that every day" and quietly went back to her desk? I hardly think so. If she was anything like the women I know, she would have shared this strange sighting with her neighbours on the steps (which included Molina and Frazier) and everyone on the steps would have been talking about the cop running into the building within 30 seconds; where he was going, why he ran into the building, was it connected to the shots they heard, etc.

When Joe Molina and Buell Wesley Frazier were asked, at their appearance before the WC, if they had seen Baker enter the TSBD, don't you think it likely they might have at least offered "Well, I never actually saw the cop myself, but Pauline Sanders saw him, and everybody on the steps was talkin' about him within the next minute or so."

Well?

Robert, one alternative scenario which I actually do subscribe to.

Noises first perceived as firecrackers, not gunshots.

So no one we see on the steps at this time cares, they really have no idea and the films seem to support that notion.

Also Baker's story is partially made up. He did not speed up, at all. He carries on around the corner on his side of the street until he gets a look down Elm but he's not the dumb cop his superior made him out to be, he's actually above average. So he notices the trouble and he slows then stops, to observe, consider.

The limo takes off and there's cops nearby, he is not needed down there.

It then takes him ten to fifteen seconds to realise that those pops could have been shots and the building as good a place to check as any.

Every single person he runs past or toward has no clue what he is doing and he's just another head in a group that are all generally shifting around.

Those still looking must know something has happened because the motorcade has clearly stopped but people are only manoeuvring to see why and those we see on film have show no fear whatsoever.

So the memorable moment for, I would say, 99% of those we see in Couch and Darnell is the moment they learn those sounds were shots. That's yet to happen.

There's kids running in the street after they've all heard firecrackers and naturally, no one cares.

Crazy.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Here is something to think about. How many times in a 50 year period does the following happen in the space of a minute?

1. The POTUS goes by the TSBD in a limo.

2. Three rifle shots are heard in Dealey Plaza.

3. A uniformed, white helmeted motorcycle cop roars up to the curb, hops off his motorcycle and goes tearing up the steps of the TSBD.

Kind of a semi-memorable moment in time, no?

Let's assume Pauline Sanders actually did see Baker go up the steps, as the FBI stated she did in their report of 24/11/63. As she seems to be the only witness on the steps who saw Baker, do you think she just calmly said to herself "Oh my, well, you certainly don't see that every day" and quietly went back to her desk? I hardly think so. If she was anything like the women I know, she would have shared this strange sighting with her neighbours on the steps (which included Molina and Frazier) and everyone on the steps would have been talking about the cop running into the building within 30 seconds; where he was going, why he ran into the building, was it connected to the shots they heard, etc.

When Joe Molina and Buell Wesley Frazier were asked, at their appearance before the WC, if they had seen Baker enter the TSBD, don't you think it likely they might have at least offered "Well, I never actually saw the cop myself, but Pauline Sanders saw him, and everybody on the steps was talkin' about him within the next minute or so."

Well?

Robert, one alternative scenario which I actually do subscribe to.

Noises first perceived as firecrackers, not gunshots.

So no one we see on the steps at this time cares, they really have no idea and the films seem to support that notion.

Also Baker's story is partially made up. He did not speed up, at all. He carries on around the corner on his side of the street until he gets a look down Elm but he's not the dumb cop his superior made him out to be, he's actually above average. So he notices the trouble and he slows then stops, to observe, consider.

The limo takes off and there's cops nearby, he is not needed down there.

It then takes him ten to fifteen seconds to realise that those pops could have been shots and the building as good a place to check as any.

Every single person he runs past or toward has no clue what he is doing and he's just another head in a group that are all generally shifting around.

Those still looking must know something has happened because the motorcade has clearly stopped but people are only manoeuvring to see why and those we see on film have show no fear whatsoever.

So the memorable moment for, I would say, 99% of those we see in Couch and Darnell is the moment they learn those sounds were shots. That's yet to happen.

There's kids running in the street after they've all heard firecrackers and naturally, no one cares.

Crazy.

I think you've missed a couple of things here, Clive. I don't think the people on the steps and lined up on the curb were quite as unaware of something being wrong as you believe they are.

For example, Roy Lewis has quickly departed the steps, and is attempting to climb the traffic light pole, to get a better view of what is going on down below, by the time Baker makes it anywhere near the steps. And look at the people across the extension from the steps. They certainly know something is wrong.

Now, if Baker had casually strolled into the TSBD, I can see Pauline Sanders observing this and making no mention of it to the others who, miraculously, did not see a big ol' white helmeted cop stroll right in front of them. But, he did not stroll, he ran into the TSBD, according to Sanders.

You don't think between the shots, the crowd in front of them clearly being spooked and a white helmeted cop running past her would cause Pauline Sanders to ask her neighbours on the steps just what the h*ll was going on?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Well, Robert, I go with Barry Ernest's information in The Girl on the Stairs, that Vickie Adams and Sandra Styles both denied several times that they'd seen Shelley & Lovelady. Support for that is found in S & L's lack of clarity as to whether and when they saw Adams on the 1st floor post-assassination. The inference is that David Belin confabulated this part of the transcript. In order to retard their descent, & thereby explain why they didn't see/hear any sign of Oswald fleeing the nest. I think that when they testified, S & L knew they were being written into the 1st-floor script and played along with the Belin confabulation.

I recall looking through some Tony Fratini photocopies this past summer at jfkassassinationforum, he had the Belin-handnotated transcripts and could show how Belin was being deceptive. I didn't download them because I had been in agreement on that for a long time; I forget the name of the thread, it was probably one that he or Colin Crow had started. It may have been in Fratini's "Arnold Rowland and the two men on the 6th floor". But he makes a convincing case, on top of what Ernest had to offer. The thread is a 90-pager or so, but a couple of pages have some big chunks of these photocopied transcripts on display, so you might key on that & that would get you through the pages much more quickly.

There's some gold at that forum, although some of it was put there by fools.

In other words, WC lawyers falsified the testimony of Victoria Adams, and either falsified the testimonies of Lovelady and Shelley, or coerced these two into giving false testimony.

If you can readily accept these serious offenses to have occurred, I am puzzled as to why you accept as Gospel the testimony of Marrion Baker and Roy Truly.

Do you not think the WC's lying could extend to these gentlemen, as well?

[Clive Largey]

Duncan I understand. He is a dyed in the wool LHO did it advocate. His only idea of a plot is the Baron somehow manipulated LHO. Which reminds me of the story told by Oltmans, which HSCA counsel Bob Tanenbaum did not buy for five seconds.

But the others?

Look, I am not sold on the whole PM concept. The main problem being that the image quality is simply not up to snuff. But give these people credit, they are trying to find film of a better image quality. And as far as I know, they are the only ones doing it. Everyone else is simply snapping their jaws or making flawed "enhancements" which they then interpret according to their own belief of who killed Kennedy. David Josephs (who I think should be allowed back on here) did some very nice work exposing this at DPF.

As for production value, c'mon. People work with what they have. I mean CBS had a lot of money. Their documentaries are pretty much worthless today. Just like the Peter Jennings/Gus Russo 2003 show has no value. Simply because the shows are not honest and contain little or no new info. OTOH, Jeff Carter and Len Osanic's series 50 Reasons for 50 Years is very helpful since it does contain new info, even though they did not have a lot of money.

If our side ever gets a lot of money to do a big production, and the right people do it, and it gets on a network or major cable company hey, it would shock hundreds of thousands of people. Maybe millions. Because the public is so used to this crap, like ITTC.

I appreciate the work these people did on the unresolved issue of PM. And I understand a part two is coming. Its a serious inquiry into an important matter.

Duncan just wants it to go away. Sorry, it will not.

The people on our side should be interested in it and tossing in constructive criticism.

Jim,

from what I hear Duncan is the complete opposite of a dyed in the wool LHO did it man, he is a born and bred conspiracy theorist, known for pulling assassins out of images all over the shop, even his signature is said to have at one time claimed "Oswald is innocent". I was hoping he might have corrected you on this himself in his latest thread.

[Richard Gilbride]

Robert Prudhomme: In other words, WC lawyers falsified [this portion of] the testimony of Victoria Adams, and either falsified [the associated portions of] the testimonies of Lovelady and Shelley, or coerced [i.e. prepped] these two into giving false testimony.

If you can readily accept these serious offenses to have occurred [in a Government that has just murdered its sitting President], I am puzzled as to why you accept as Gospel the testimony [that in particular relates to the lunchroom incident] of Marrion Baker and Roy Truly.

Do you think the WC's lying could extend to these gentlemen, as well?

***********

Belin could not have achieved this, the perpetration of a lunchroom hoax, because there were 2 testimonies in near lock-step correspondence to doctor up. The will-call counter bump is the telltale clue that the correspondences were true accounts.

Imagine Belin attempting to insert the bump into scripts, in his office at his leisure, for dramatic realism. Not only does this run into the problem I mentioned earlier- of the stenographer, etc.- now wrapped up in the mini-conspiracy.

But the bump will be exposed as a falsehood once the hoax hypothesis fails, when it is held up against the aggregate of: the filmed interview, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the lack of Biffle corroboration (this list is not exhaustive- we may include the Oswald-wedding-ring similarity with Baker's-sameday affidavit-omission-arrested-Oswald and the Martha Jo Stroud document)

Belin knew full well that he would have to answer to the historians of his day, when the 26 volumes were published. And if the bump had been a falsehood, and the historians had recognized and publicized that, the whole edifice could have come tumbling down. He couldn't have pulled off this sleight-of-hand, even if he had to. It is impossible in a philosophical sense- there is too much of the aggregate that could potentially pop up and expose Belin's sleight-of-hand.

So the hoaxers thus have to paint Baker as a monster- a devious player in the coverup, stretching over a 23-year-coupling of film record.

But the coverup maestro was Truly, and it was Truly who used the lunchroom incident to help keep focus away from the west elevator.

[Sandy Larsen]

#223 Prudhomme: The crazy thing about Baker's testimony is that he actually states the pigeons were flying up to the roof...

#224 Gilbride (ribbing): That's not what I saw in the movie [JFK].

I must express my opinion that this research into what Baker did off-camera, immediately after this film clip, is a waste of time.

It may (or may not) be a waste of time regarding the lunchroom incident. But in general I don't think it is. For some reason, Baker's mad dash to the TSBD entrance was interupted, prompting him to very quickly take a right turn to apparently go elsewhere. Though we don't currently know what it was that changed Baker's mind, some other information might surface that could expalin it. Adding 2 and 2, as it were.

Researcheritis, a highly-contagious pathogen, is back with us. And gobbling victims like hapless Christmas geese.

1) Baker's March 20th re-enactment brought him to the top of the landing 15 seconds after the shots.

2) The aggregate of the filmed interview, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, the lack of Biffle-story corroboration (to mention 4 things)- these things oblige us to dismiss completely any notion that the lunchroom incident was hoaxed.

Can you explain how the "will-call counter bump" and "the lack of Biffle Story corroberation" support the lunchroom encounter story? For a noob like me who knows the general story but not these two specifics.

I read Baker's earliest statement where he doesn't mention the lunchroom incident. How is his "Sept. 23 affidavit," which you say supports the lunchroom story, different? Does it specifically tell that story?

This means that we are obliged to consider every item of related evidence through the lens of the incident's reality.

The hoaxers have never presented a position paper detailing their argument. By contrast, I have 1) initiated a thread at the old ROKC forum to challenge their contention 2) written an essay defending the incident at the old forum 3) invested 11 pages in a section in a new essay to further discuss this debate, and hammer home my point.

You must juxtapose Baker's timeline with Adams' timeline. Whatever Baker did immediately off-camera, it must add up to 20ish seconds in order to allow Adams to run out of the warehouse unnoticed. The first couple of the 11 pages call attention to this requirement.

Baker's distraction from more-immediately entering the TSBD may have lasted 20 or more seconds for all we know. Also, it is in line with his earliest statement. Though admittedly wasn't mentioned by him in that statement.

And not only that, reasons must be offered as to why Adams' "big black man" was standing approximately by the east elevator, but Baker's "large black man" was sitting when he & Truly encountered him. The reason proferred in my new essay is that Baker encountered Troy West, who was at his habitual lunch spot, and that Adams encountered West when he had stood up afterwards to see what was going on. (This, by the way, occurred after the lunchroom incident)

To counter my proferred solution, you are required to find a more natural fit for the data we are presented (from The Girl on the Stairs).

And, proffer a reasonable explanation as to why Baker would "fake" a 15 second re-enactment on March 20th.

Baker seemed like the kind of guy who did what he was asked to do. Could be as simple as that. Didn't rock the boat.

Do you still believe there is recoverable gold in the vein you are prospecting? In that 1/4 - 1/2 second of film?

Right now, very possibly there is gold. But I will reconsider if your answers to my questions above are convincing enough.

[Sandy Larsen]

Jim has never been the same since John Mcadams annihilated him with facts vs factiods in a lengthy radio debate......

Wow! I can't believe that you believe that.

What I heard as I listened to the debate was DiEugenio bringing up difficult-after-difficult-to-explain problems with the WC story, and McAdams replying with "that's another a CTer factoid" followed by WC doctrine, but NO explanation for the difficult-to-explain WC problem.

That you believe the way you do on the debate makes *me* wonder if you have LNer tendencies. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Before now I've been agnostic about your inclinations... you just seemed to disagree with a lot of people.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Sandy Larsen