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

[Thomas Graves]

I thought we already discussed the fact that Baker was never seen to approach the stairs in Darnell. And now you know which side of the stairs he went up? Are you clairvoyant?

Joe Molina did not see Baker ascend the front steps, even when Ball specifically asked Molina if he had seen a "white helmeted police officer" enter the TSBD. Molina did, though, see Roy Truly enter the TSBD. According to popular belief, Truly and Baker ascended the front steps together, supposedly on the same side of the centre railing. How did Molina see Truly, but not see Baker?

Dear Bob,

What do you mean "we don't see Baker approach the stairs in the Darnell clip"? What's your definition of "approach," anyway?

Doesn't "approach" mean to go towards something and get closer and closer to it?

If Baker wasn't running towards the steps and getting close to them, then why in the heck did the tall, suit-wearing guy at the foot of them sidestep out of his way and wave him up them with his left arm? (Yes, Bob, I'm aware of the fact that Baker veered and didn't run up the steps where the suit-wearing guy thought he was going to go.)

The tall, suit-wearing guy at the base of the steps obviously though Baker was going to run up the steps. Why did he think that? Answer: Because Baker was running like a madman towards them from across the street, and veered a little only when he was up on the sidewalk, close to them!

Haven't we already talked about this?

--Tommy

By the way, While we're "at" it, please tell us where you think the following people were

at 1 ) the time of the final shot), 2 ) one minute after the final shot, 3 ) three minutes after the final shot, and 4 ) five minutes after the final shot. No need to explain why you want them to be there, just where you want them to be.

1 ) Lee Harvey Oswald (the guy Ruby killed on 11/24/63)

2 ) Marion L. Baker

3 ) Roy S. Truly

4 ) Vicki Adams

5 ) Billy Lovelady

6 ) William H. Shelley

Thanks!

Sorry Tommy but your questions are from post #168 just to be clear.

And also that is 6 people x 5 timing locations or 30 BioChronoGeo estimations.

At roughly 1 "BioChronoGeo estimate" per day it could take several months for a reply.. what with holidays, travel, vacation, sick days,etc,.

I'd lower the bar and ask for an estimation

[Where were Oswald, Baker, Truly, Adams, Shelley, and Lovelady] :

A ) at the time of last shot, (Where were they)

B ) 1 minute post last shot (where did they go)

C ) and at 12:33 (when LHO was leaving the building)

Hopefully we can all get a better understanding this year using this reduced workload.

I think that's a wonderful idea, Ed.

Robert Prudhomme seems to be intent on not only proving that Oswald was completely innocent, but in simultaneously proving that Baker and Truly and / or Shelley and Lovelady were conspirators.

Let's see what he comes up with!

--Tommy

Edited December 14, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Ed LeDoux]

[Where were Oswald, Baker, Truly, Adams, Shelley, and Lovelady] :

A ) at the time of last shot, (Where were they)

B ) 1 minute post last shot (where did they go)

C ) and at 12:33 (when LHO was leaving the building)

Should be cake walk.

Holding breath now Tommy

[Robert Prudhomme]

And just who do you think you are, Thomas, demanding that others come up with theories merely because you snap your fingers? This is a technique usually employed by LN's. Your statement, "Robert Prudhomme seems to be intent on not only proving that Oswald was completely innocent, but in simultaneously proving that Baker and Truly and / or Shelley and Lovelady were conspirators." only serves to make the similarity stronger.

Are you implying Oswald was guilty?

[Thomas Graves]

And just who do you think you are, Thomas, demanding that others come up with theories merely because you snap your fingers? This is a technique usually employed by LN's. Your statement, "Robert Prudhomme seems to be intent on not only proving that Oswald was completely innocent, but in simultaneously proving that Baker and Truly and / or Shelley and Lovelady were conspirators." only serves to make the similarity stronger.

Are you implying Oswald was guilty?

Dear Bob,

I'm not "demanding" anything, at least no more than you "demand" in your non-stop rhetorical questions. Answer one question for Prudhomme, and he scoffs at your answer, makes a snide remark, and asks you two or three more.

Why do you resist telling us what you think Truly and Baker did? And Shelley and Lovelady, too?

No, Bob, I'm not implying that Oswald was guilty.

It sure would be nice if we could prove that Oswald was Prayer Person, though, wouldn't it? First I'd like to figure out what he or she is doing with his or her hands, wouldn't you?

Don't you think Oswald could have been innocent even if Prayer Person was someone other than Oswald?

--Tommy

Edited December 14, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Ed LeDoux]

Given what we know about Dallas in the sixties under the auspices of Henry Wade and the indictment machine, I'd find it easy to belive Lee was innocent of these charges. Did someone set up a patsy? You better believe with a strong shove the case was locked on Oswald from 12:33pm on.

Is Prayer Man Lee Oswald? Why not? Folks like Macrae would rather manipulate the images than accept the fact of Oswald being where he claimed, out with Shelley.

Macrae would rather ignore Harry Holmes, whom specifically and explicitly describes Oswald as having been on the first floor during the shooting, and why the late questions of where Oswald was? Was not Will Fritz highly interested in exact locations and times,,,, not from the extant notes he wasn't.
The FBI's consternation that Lovelady was Oswald and standing in the Altgens 6 pic. is a clue the authorities had an inkling of where it was Oswald was claiming to be soon after the shooting.
Wesley Frazier's recent claim, that he saw Oswald come from around back and cross Houston St has its own pitfalls but goes squarely against the commissions unsubstantiated desire to have Oswald exit the front entrance at 12:33pm.
How did that work, take the time from last shot add time to get to second floor lunch room, add encounter time, add time to get to entrance from SFLR. 12:33
You can add or subtract a carbonated beverage purchase at your leisure.
What does all this mean?

By preponderance of the available evidence demonstrates how Oswald's rights were ignored, evidence while examined either ignored or altered (still being altered by Duncan's bad photoshop skills) and that no other person on planet earth claims they were standing in that location. Standing there for some time and as a white helmeted police officer runs past or possibly had an interaction with themselves and the building superintendent ..... well no one except Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Clive Largey]

Just my 2 cents on Baker's actions after he had virtually reached the first step as filmed by Couch:

WCH VII reads: On March 20, 1964, counsel from the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy timed a re-enactment of my actions after hearing the shots on November 22, 1963. During this re-enactment, I reached the recessed door of the Texas School Book Depository Building fifteen seconds after the time of the simulated shot. Signed this 11th day of August 1964 at Dallas, Tex.

(s) Marrion L. Baker, MARRION L. BAKER

I can't see any reason why Baker would be diverted from sprinting straight up the seven steps. Especially with a re-enactment that brought him straight to the top of the landing. I don't see a need for having a single witness to confirm that this is what happened.

Richard, I understand your point but what you put in bold type and underlined is provably wrong.

That re-enactment did not use hard evidence to place Baker's bike correctly and neither was any used to get a better idea of the timing like we can today. At fifteen seconds he was not even running toward the building yet.

That isn't even close.

He went past the entrance and onto Elm and paused to figure out what was happening.

He says it, the position of the bike supports it, as does the considered estimation on the timing of that Couch sequence.

Twenty seconds before he even makes a move, directly for the entrance.

Legend has it that he knew it was gunfire and something he spotted directed him immediately to a very good lead, that's what they had to replicate. The films suggest an alternative.

Your point I agree with, he ran directly toward the entrance from his bike(eventually) and it's Truly, who's house it was, that doesn't get out of his way and he is forced to run around.

[Robert Prudhomme]

So, are we all agreed, then, that Prayer Man was holding a twin lens reflex camera, and the "glow" seen between his hands was light entering the viewfinder of the TLR, reflecting off the internal mirror and being emitted out the top lens of the TLR camera?

[Thomas Graves]

So, are we all agreed, then, that Prayer Man was holding a twin lens reflex camera, and the "glow" seen between his hands was light entering the viewfinder of the TLR, reflecting off the internal mirror and being emitted out the top lens of the TLR camera?

Dear Robert,

Sadly, we are not all agreed on what Prayer Person is holding in his or her hands.

Why don't you start a new poll on the issue?

It will be interesting to see how you word it.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited December 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Ed LeDoux]

Sleeved arm is holding...the other arm. Arms were crossed IMO. Nothing is being 'held' between hands. Based on anatomy alone.




Leaning back, sleeved arm and hand crossed over other arm and hand.



His other hand would be about where his right elbow is if he was "holding" something. The "other hand" is a reflection, or something else besides a hand. Please try standing with arms crossed, and then attempt the pose claimed by those saying he is "holding" or doing something. Post results and orthopedist bills for arm shortening and contortionist consultations below;



Best looks at Prayer Man make me instantly think Oswald.



Oswald got no fair play in Dallas.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Sleeved arm is holding...the other arm. Arms were crossed IMO. Nothing is being 'held' between hands. Based on anatomy alone.

Leaning back, sleeved arm and hand crossed over other arm and hand.

His other hand would be about where his right elbow is if he was "holding" something. The "other hand" is a reflection, or something else besides a hand. Please try standing with arms crossed, and then attempt the pose claimed by those saying he is "holding" or doing something. Post results and orthopedist bills for arm shortening and contortionist consultations below;

Best looks at Prayer Man make me instantly think Oswald.

Oswald got no fair play in Dallas.

Think of a TLR camera held horizontally (panoramic view of the motorcade) with the top "glowing" lens on PM's right.

P.S.

Light emitted from top lens entered viewfinder from street side.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Richard Gilbride]

Clive,

You may be misunderstanding my point, or I didn't present it all that well. I typed that entry (Baker's March 20th blurb) from Bill Kelly's article The Doors of Perception- Why Oswald is Not Guilty, which included Bill's underlining. My bad in replicating that underlining.

The point I was trying to make was that Baker ran right to the top of the entranceway landing- in a beeline from his motorcycle. The Couch film shows him in the process of doing that, up to Baker's almost touching the first step. There is no doubt in my own mind- picturing him as a basically honest cop- that what he did then (in this portion of the re-enactment) was what he had done on November 22nd.

I'm not married to the notion that he was up there at Z-313 plus 15 seconds. It would be nice, but not essential, to have another look at Sean's 2007 Lancer study, just to see how he arrived at that figure of 22+ seconds for when Baker hit the first step. Sean singlehandedly outdid Gary Mack's desperation bid to put that at 45 seconds, so maybe some compromises were settled on when tallying & appraising, just to thwart Mack. I'm not suggesting that did or did not happen.

What puzzles me is Howard Roffman's contention in another Bill Kelly blogpost, Howard Roffman's "Presumed Guilty" on p. 3- and the investigator would be well-served by reading from about one page previous to this excerpt (in the JULY 2013 section)- from where it states: To begin with, the reconstruction of Baker's movements started at the wrong time...

...From Couch's testimony and the scenes depicted in his film, in addition to the testimony of others in the same car, it can be determined that Couch began filming no more than 10 seconds after the last shot.

Establishing a different time for Baker's first-step arrival, say at Z-313 plus 15 seconds, is not that critical. But it would add fuel to the contention (mine & Michael T. Griffith's) that Baker made it to the 2nd-floor landing by Z-313 plus 50 seconds.

I have some free time today and hopefully will be able to comment on other parts of this thread.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Richard

You make some assumptions here about the Darnell film. If you look closely, you'll see Baker was nowhere near the steps as Darnell panned away, and was actually running parallel to the bottom step.

[Ed LeDoux]

shoddy outline gets the idea across.
A film clip helps,
Here is PM doing what everyone else is doing, sheilding the bright sun from their eyes.
https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CQLoDOPWIAA5MrP.mp4

[Richard Gilbride]

Robert Prudhomme: If you look closely, you'll see Baker was nowhere near the steps as Darnell panned away, and was actually running parallel to the bottom step.

Please post that photo-analysis, or refer me to its location. I am aware that you have been involved recently in that discussion. It is time-consuming for me to try to locate it.

When I looked through that discussion the first time, I could not agree with its conclusion that Baker is "running parallel". I thought you were jumping to that conclusion, that the film was too coarse-grained to definitively determine that.

[Darren Hastings]

shoddy outline gets the idea across.

Terrific Ed.