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

[Robert Prudhomme]

It's not like the group on the steps of the TSBD were not a friendly, affable bunch that didn't speak to each other. According to Buell Wesley Frazier's WC testimony, they were all chatting quite amiably before the arrival of JFK.

"Mr. BALL - Did you go out there with somebody?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BALL - Who did you go out there with?

Mr. FRAZIER - I stayed around there pretty close to Mr. Shelley and this boy Billy Lovelady and just standing there, people talking and just talking about how pretty a day it turned out to be, because I told you earlier it was an old cloudy and misty day and then it didn't look like it was going to be a pretty day at all.

Mr. BALL - And it turned out to be a good day?

Mr. FRAZIER - Pretty sunshiny day.

Mr. BALL - Warm?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was pretty warm.

Mr. BALL - Then let's see, there was Billy Lovelady and you were there.

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. BALL - Anybody else you can remember?

Mr. FRAZIER - There was a lady there, a heavy-set lady who worked upstairs there whose name is Sarah something, I don't know her last name.

Mr. BALL - Were you near the steps?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I was, I was standing about, I believe, one step down from the top there."

So, this friendly old bunch was just talking and talking about what a pretty day it was, but three shots ring out at the POTUS, a white helmeted cop runs through their midst, and everyone on the steps doesn't know about the cop within a minute???

Again I say, well?

[Clive Largey]

What's this now, a list of some sort? Okay...

Thomas Graves thinks Duncan MacRae supplied us some excellent images of Prayerman.

Who goes next?

Dear Clive,

Just trying to help, Clive.

You and Richard seemed to be talking about different things. He wanted to know what possible "diversion" could have motivated Barker to run past the front steps. At least that's what I thought he was asking.

Then you mentioned the pigeons flying off the roof of the TSBD.

And I'm suggesting, as a devil's advocate (arguing for Prudhomme), that maybe Baker wanted to ask the policeman or policemen down at the intersection whether or not they thought the shots had come from the TSBD, and that's why he ran down there right away, instead of up the steps.

Why the sarcasm? Did you think I was attacking you?

Why don't you like Duncan's images? What if I told you his recent GIF shows Prayer Person's sideburns, so must be a man?

--Tommy

Tommy,

that was the second time in as many responses that you painted me as someone who doesn't read the thread I'm posting in. As a matter of fact I've already given Robert my opinion on his theory and supplied another witness who saw a cop go up the steps.

If you want me to talk about another point why bother quoting my full post?

That's what I don't quite understand.

Nothing Duncan has done has improved my understanding of the anyone on the steps. He takes a reasonably decent image and then screws with it till he finds something that wasn't there originally, he's been doing it for over a decade according to some and appears to have learnt nothing. But that's the thing, you can't do something repeatedly year after year and not get better at it, it's practically impossible, so I treat the whole thing as a joke, it's a wind up that brings him more advertising revenue. It's the xmas push.

That's my opinion, it might be shared but it's what I truly believe since it makes zero sense for someone to be pushing the same low level garbage for over ten years.

Of course you've never seen his shooter inside the shelter, or the three conspirators behind the wall, or why he thought Sitzman was a shooter, or the shooter on top of the pergola but if we did, I guarantee we'd see the same distortions that gave you sideburns.

There you have it.

[David Josephs]

Tommy,

that was the second time in as many responses that you painted me as someone who doesn't read the thread I'm posting in. As a matter of fact I've already given Robert my opinion on his theory and supplied another witness who saw a cop go up the steps.

If you want me to talk about another point why bother quoting my full post?

That's what I don't quite understand.

Nothing Duncan has done has improved my understanding of the anyone on the steps. He takes a reasonably decent image and then screws with it till he finds something that wasn't there originally, he's been doing it for over a decade according to some and appears to have learnt nothing. But that's the thing, you can't do something repeatedly year after year and not get better at it, it's practically impossible, so I treat the whole thing as a joke, it's a wind up that brings him more advertising revenue. It's the xmas push.

That's my opinion, it might be shared but it's what I truly believe since it makes zero sense for someone to be pushing the same low level garbage for over ten years.

Of course you've never seen his shooter inside the shelter, or the three conspirators behind the wall, or why he thought Sitzman was a shooter, or the shooter on top of the pergola but if we did, I guarantee we'd see the same distortions that gave you sideburns.

There you have it.

Perfectly put Clive.

Tommy and by default Albert remain in the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality. Do either profess a knowledge of imagery, analog v digital, or any of the other nuances required to understand that while Duncan can claim to see whatever he like - as so many before him - the images are there for all to see. If you want to see a woman in a hat and glasses with a purse taking a photo - more power to you.

To claim to ID gender and see details in this fuzz is laughable despite the seriousness with which Duncan appeared to have offered it. We are also to remember what Duncan replied to me when I asked him directly about it - seems his answer and Clive's theory might have some relationship.

12 December 2015 - 12:52 AM

For someone who has/had a very good command of images and how pixels work - your marriage to this terrible analysis is most puzzling.

It serves a purpose

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22524&page=1entry320025

Duncan has provided amazingly good work over the years - my only guess here is that he is enjoying the result of pushing this boulder down the mountain and does not for a second think he can PROVE anything -

He does soom to be saying "Anyone but Oswald" in this analysis as if it was important somehow to maintain the charade.

Again - can anyone address why they think Shelley tells us Lloyd Viles is up there with him during the motorcade - when he obviously was not. Why hide his true location unless he was covering for who was actually there?

When we asnwer that question - and remember the image of Shelley at the ITM in NOLA with Oswald and the Cubans - the Manager of the Misc department is obviously hiding alot.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

It appears that neither Baker nor the running lady has reached the curb yet.

The sidewalk is 10ft wide.

These are my only conclusions so far.

chris

Excellent Chris. I didn't notice that they weren't even on the sidewalk. Your observation helps to corroborate my conclusions. Thanks.

[Ian Lloyd]

I seem to recall noticing previously that right at the end of the full clip, it looks to me like Baker is raising his foot as if he's about to step onto the kerb (curb?).

Edited December 16, 2015 by Ian Lloyd

[Tom Hume]

The end of the clip goes by pretty quick. It might be helpful if someone could post a couple of stills from the point just before we loose Baker.

[Ian Lloyd]

Actually, if you look closely at the shadows on the ground in the clip above, you can see them 'bend' as they fall onto the kerb; Baker's shadow can also be seen to 'bend' as he approaches the kerb and his leg appears to raise as if he's about to step up onto it.

[Sandy Larsen]

The end of the clip goes by pretty quick. It might be helpful if someone could post a couple of stills from the point just before we loose Baker.

You can upload the video file to https://www.gif-explode.com/ and this will display all the frames.

To do this, first click the video so that you see the magnified view. Then click the Save icon that you'll see in that view. From there you can either save the video file or get the URL for the file. You can then upload the file to www.gif-explode.com using either of these.

[Sandy Larsen]

Actually, if you look closely at the shadows on the ground in the clip above, you can see them 'bend' as they fall onto the kerb; Baker's shadow can also be seen to 'bend' as he approaches the kerb and his leg appears to raise as if he's about to step up onto it.

Good catch Ian! Though I vigorously disagree regarding Baker's stepping up on the curb. His shadow barely touches the curb by the end of the video. You need to look at the individual frames to see these two things.

The shadow of the running woman bends as she approaches the curb. You cannot see her raise a foot to step up on the curb, BUT right at the end of the video you can see that she's within inches of having to do so.

In my analysis above, I estimated that the woman was at least 13.5 feet from the steps where her path crosses Baker's. After that she takes two more steps toward the stairway by the time the video ends, at which point she has reached the curb. She travels 6 feet in those two steps. The curb is 10 feet from the stairway. Therefore, she was actually 6 + 10 = 16 feet from the stairway where she crossed Baker's path. My conservative 13.5 foot calculation is thus favorably corroborated.

So Baker was 16 feet away from the stairway as he passed it by. He didn't run to the stairway and he had no intention of doing so at that time. The video proves it. He was, however, gradually approaching the curb as he passed by the stairway. His shadow reveals this fact.

Robert P. is right.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Actually, if you look closely at the shadows on the ground in the clip above, you can see them 'bend' as they fall onto the kerb; Baker's shadow can also be seen to 'bend' as he approaches the kerb and his leg appears to raise as if he's about to step up onto it.

Good catch Ian! Though I vigorously disagree regarding Baker's stepping up on the curb. His shadow barely touches the curb by the end of the video. You need to look at the individual frames to see these two things.

The shadow of the running woman bends as she approaches the curb. You cannot see her raise a foot to step up on the curb, BUT right at the end of the video you can see that she's within inches of having to do so.

In my analysis above, I estimated that the woman was at least 13.5 feet from the steps where her path crosses Baker's. After that she takes two more steps toward the stairway by the time the video ends, at which point she has reached the curb. She travels 6 feet in those two steps. The curb is 10 feet from the stairway. Therefore, she was actually 6 + 10 = 16 feet from the stairway where she crossed Baker's path. My conservative 13.5 foot calculation is thus favorably corroborated.

So Baker was 16 feet away from the stairway as he passed it by. He didn't run to the stairway and he had no intention of doing so at that time. The video proves it. He was, however, gradually approaching the curb as he passed by the stairway. His shadow reveals this fact.

Robert P. is right.

We are stuck now with the obvious question, where did Baker go, if not up the steps immediately? I believe he did go up the steps, eventually, but it would be nice to know what became of him in the interim.

[Sandy Larsen]

Actually, if you look closely at the shadows on the ground in the clip above, you can see them 'bend' as they fall onto the kerb; Baker's shadow can also be seen to 'bend' as he approaches the kerb and his leg appears to raise as if he's about to step up onto it.

Good catch Ian! Though I vigorously disagree regarding Baker's stepping up on the curb. His shadow barely touches the curb by the end of the video. You need to look at the individual frames to see these two things.

The shadow of the running woman bends as she approaches the curb. You cannot see her raise a foot to step up on the curb, BUT right at the end of the video you can see that she's within inches of having to do so.

In my analysis above, I estimated that the woman was at least 13.5 feet from the steps where her path crosses Baker's. After that she takes two more steps toward the stairway by the time the video ends, at which point she has reached the curb. She travels 6 feet in those two steps. The curb is 10 feet from the stairway. Therefore, she was actually 6 + 10 = 16 feet from the stairway where she crossed Baker's path. My conservative 13.5 foot calculation is thus favorably corroborated.

So Baker was 16 feet away from the stairway as he passed it by. He didn't run to the stairway and he had no intention of doing so at that time. The video proves it. He was, however, gradually approaching the curb as he passed by the stairway. His shadow reveals this fact.

Robert P. is right.

We are stuck now with the obvious question, where did Baker go, if not up the steps immediately? I believe he did go up the steps, eventually, but it would be nice to know what became of him in the interim.

Wherever Baker went, he sure was in a hurry to get there.

His rush made complete sense when we thought he heard shots from the TSBD and so he quickly entered there. But what now? Could he have been running to another building from which he heard shots? Or did he see someone suspicious looking?

I can't be of much help here as I am but a noob... I don't have Baker-related testimony embedded in my brain.

BTW, did anybody give early (11/22 or 11/23) statements that Baker entered the TSBD with seconds? Because if anybody did, they were either lying or really, really mistaken.

[Sandy Larsen]

BTW, we owe a big THANK YOU to whoever it was that made that stabilized video. (Animated GIF, actually.) Also, I want to personally thank Robert Prudhomme for bringing to my/our attention that Baker was running (roughly) parallel to the TSBD, not toward the stairway. This is a big deal imo.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

Ah, 'tweren't nothin', Sandy.

Seriously, though, I decided a few years back to start taking a hard look at many of the accepted "facts" in this case. As I said a while back, another accepted "fact" that falls apart pretty quickly, when examined closely, is the "shallow" wound in JFK's back.

How many other "facts" have been carefully fed to us by those perpetuating the coverup, decade after decade, just to make us think we've uncovered something, while all the while something else is being kept hidden?

[Sandy Larsen]

That's right, Robert. I joined this forum just two or three months ago, and I've been surprised to discover that there are still things to be investigated after all these decades.

Some forum members think its a waste of time to continue investigating the details, because we all know there was a conspiracy and a cover-up, and that Oswald probably didn't even fire a weapon that day. They say it's time to move on to the big picture topics, like those covered in Brothers and JFK and the Unspeakable. But I say the minutia is still important because it can help reveal big-picture items that we still don't know. Like how exactly Oswald was involved.

[Chris Davidson]

Panorama.