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

[Vanessa Loney]

The MOVIE???? OMG. First "the book", now the movie? I guess there are no more topics to explore on this case so one has to start inventing them.

This ranks up there with Ralph Cinque's "doorway man" obsession.

Say goodnight Gracie.

Dawn

Hello Dawn

Actually it's quite commonplace for books to be turned into movies so I'm not sure what you're on about.

In any case, the movie is Bart's own research and he will also be issuing a book based on that.

Like Duncan, you don't seem to have any factual points to make about the film either.

Funny, how you are also prepared to come on here to debate PM and yet Duncan-like won't allow any of us on DP to discuss it. What are you lot so afraid of?

Edited December 6, 2015 by Vanessa Loney

[Vanessa Loney]

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.

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.

Thank you Jim di for being a voice of reason on here.

The main focus now of the team working on this is to get a copy of the original Darnell film which is held by NBC5. They have so far refused to make the original available for a high resolution copy.

As Jim di says everyone on our side should support this endeavour.

And I would have thought that all those on the other side would also support this endeavour because it's not Oswald, right? So a high resolution scan would put another crackpot conspiracy theory to bed along with Ralph Cinque's doorway man.

But, on the contrary, the other side seems not only not interested in getting a scan but put all their energies into preventing the mere discussion of PM wherever they can.

In any case, the PM issue is not going away and frankly it's only going to get bigger. The team working on PM is not stopping until the PM issue is resolved.

[Vanessa Loney]

Thanks, Vanessa.

The film to which you link is interesting but typical. Typical because the narrator takes ambiguous data and out of the date makes assertions.

Assertions are opinions that masquerade as facts, which masquerade as "evidence".

The film to which you link is interesting but is unconvincing in some respects. For example, Billy Lovelady had an erect posture. The Billy Lovelady character in the 11-22-63 films had an unusual, head-thrusting-forward posture.

Thanks, Vanessa.

The film to which you link is interesting but typical. Typical because the narrator takes ambiguous data and out of the date makes assertions.

Assertions are opinions that masquerade as facts, which masquerade as "evidence".

The film to which you link is interesting but is unconvincing in some respects. For example, Billy Lovelady had an erect posture. The Billy Lovelady character in the 11-22-63 films had an unusual, head-thrusting-forward posture.

Dear Mr Tidd

"Billy Lovelady had an erect posture"?? I'm not sure what to make of that statement. Are you saying Billy Lovelady never stooped or bent over at all?

Billy Lovelady can be clearly seen in Altgens 6 leaning out past the TSBD entrance to look at the presidential motorcade which accounts for his 'head-thrusting-forward posture'.

Lovelady is also visible standing next to Prayer Man in Weigman as Bart points out in his film.

So Lovelady and his posture are not actually that relevant to the PM debate anymore except in so far as we know that Lovelady is not PM.

If that the only point you can criticise in the film?

Edited December 6, 2015 by Vanessa Loney

[Vanessa Loney]

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

I chimed in, opined that the figure had a male attitude, in my opinion.

I was attacked by Bart Kamp on ROKC, compared with Craig Lamson!

It was the latest personal attack I've taken from that forum.

A couple of the main guys there think I should have my head bashed in because I focus on the physical evidence in a murder case.

A couple of other main guys cast homo-erotic insinuations because I push the significance of "compartmentalization" in intelligence operations.

Their approach to the case suffers the same tragic flaw as Jim DiEugenio's -- they mistake a study of the Oswald assassination for a study of the Kennedy hit.

A teachable moment: never marry your Pet Theory.

Cliff, those are some strong statements. Do you have any evidence that you were threatened or bullied?

[Thomas Graves]

Thanks, Vanessa.

The film to which you link is interesting but typical. Typical because the narrator takes ambiguous data and out of the date makes assertions.

Assertions are opinions that masquerade as facts, which masquerade as "evidence".

The film to which you link is interesting but is unconvincing in some respects. For example, Billy Lovelady had an erect posture. The Billy Lovelady character in the 11-22-63 films had an unusual, head-thrusting-forward posture.

Thanks, Vanessa.

The film to which you link is interesting but typical. Typical because the narrator takes ambiguous data and out of the date makes assertions.

Assertions are opinions that masquerade as facts, which masquerade as "evidence".

The film to which you link is interesting but is unconvincing in some respects. For example, Billy Lovelady had an erect posture. The Billy Lovelady character in the 11-22-63 films had an unusual, head-thrusting-forward posture.

Dear Mr Tidd

"Billy Lovelady had an erect posture"?? I'm not sure what to make of that statement. Are you saying Billy Lovelady never stooped or bent over at all?

Billy Lovelady can be clearly seen in Altgens 6 leaning out past the TSBD entrance to look at the presidential motorcade which accounts for his 'head-thrusting-forward posture'.

Lovelady is also visible standing next to Prayer Man in Weigman as Bart points out in his film.

So Lovelady and his posture are not actually that relevant to the PM debate anymore except in so far as we know that Lovelady is not PM.

If that the only point you can criticise in the film?

Vanessa,

It's my personal opinion that Mr. Tidd doesn't like to look at JFK assassination films and photographs very closely because he thinks that they were all altered. I explained to him on another thread that the reason Lovelady's posture and positioning appear so different in the Altgens 6 still photograph and the Wiegman film clip is due to the wildly different angles of the photographers involved, plus the fact that Lovelady (who was by the center hand rail the whole time) leaned forward at a certain point.

But to no avail.

My only problem with Prayer Person's being Oswald is that in the Wiegman clip you can see Prayer Person lower a 35 mm camera (or a pair of binoculars) from his / her face. Was Oswald known to have taken a 35 mm camera or a pair of binoculars to work with him that day, or were either of those things found inside the TSBD after the assassination?

--Tommy

Edited December 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Cliff Varnell]

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

I chimed in, opined that the figure had a male attitude, in my opinion.

I was attacked by Bart Kamp on ROKC, compared with Craig Lamson!

It was the latest personal attack I've taken from that forum.

A couple of the main guys there think I should have my head bashed in because I focus on the physical evidence in a murder case.

A couple of other main guys cast homo-erotic insinuations because I push the significance of "compartmentalization" in intelligence operations.

Their approach to the case suffers the same tragic flaw as Jim DiEugenio's -- they mistake a study of the Oswald assassination for a study of the Kennedy hit.

A teachable moment: never marry your Pet Theory.

Cliff, those are some strong statements. Do you have any evidence that you were threatened or bullied?

Ask Lee Farley and Hasan Yusuf if they felt threatened or bullied by my response.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I don't understand why you're attacked for your "compartmentalization" thinking. You are correct.

Oswald obsessives long married to their pet theories suffer from Garrison Disorder -- confusing a study of the Oswald assassination with a study of the Kennedy assassination.

They can't get their head around the idea that killing Kennedy and killing Oswald involved different sets of personnel.

[Vanessa Loney]

Thanks, Vanessa.

The film to which you link is interesting but typical. Typical because the narrator takes ambiguous data and out of the date makes assertions.

Assertions are opinions that masquerade as facts, which masquerade as "evidence".

The film to which you link is interesting but is unconvincing in some respects. For example, Billy Lovelady had an erect posture. The Billy Lovelady character in the 11-22-63 films had an unusual, head-thrusting-forward posture.

Thanks, Vanessa.

The film to which you link is interesting but typical. Typical because the narrator takes ambiguous data and out of the date makes assertions.

Assertions are opinions that masquerade as facts, which masquerade as "evidence".

The film to which you link is interesting but is unconvincing in some respects. For example, Billy Lovelady had an erect posture. The Billy Lovelady character in the 11-22-63 films had an unusual, head-thrusting-forward posture.

Dear Mr Tidd

"Billy Lovelady had an erect posture"?? I'm not sure what to make of that statement. Are you saying Billy Lovelady never stooped or bent over at all?

Billy Lovelady can be clearly seen in Altgens 6 leaning out past the TSBD entrance to look at the presidential motorcade which accounts for his 'head-thrusting-forward posture'.

Lovelady is also visible standing next to Prayer Man in Weigman as Bart points out in his film.

So Lovelady and his posture are not actually that relevant to the PM debate anymore except in so far as we know that Lovelady is not PM.

If that the only point you can criticise in the film?

Vanessa,

It's my personal opinion that Mr. Tidd doesn't like to look at JFK assassination films and photographs very closely because he thinks that they were all altered. I explained to him on another thread that the reason Lovelady's posture and positioning appear so different in the Altgens 6 still photograph and the Wiegman film clip is due to the wildly different angles of the photographers involved, plus the fact that Lovelady (who was by the center hand rail the whole time) leaned forward at a certain point.

But to no avail.

My only problem with Prayer Person's being Oswald is that in the Wiegman clip you can see Prayer Person lower a 35 mm camera (or a pair of binoculars) from his / her face. Was Oswald known to have taken a 35 mm camera or a pair of binoculars to work with him that day, or were either of those things found inside the TSBD after the assassination?

--Tommy

Oh. Thanks Tommy. I didn't realise that was Mr Tidd's view. I agree with you that it is the angle of the photographers and Lovelady's movement that makes those images look different. But it is still the same man.

I thought the jury was still out on the issue of what Oswald is holding or not holding. I thought we were all still divided between coke bottle, camera or binoculars. Linda has made a great case for it being a camera though.

I don't think there has ever been any mention of Oswald taking anything to or from work except for the lunch bag and curtain rods. So we're at a standstill on this issue, as far as I'm aware. But I'm not up on that aspect of the debate, Linda and Greg could probably fill you in better than me.

Barto has done a great, previously unseen, photo enhancement that shows something very bright in PM's hands but I think Barto is holding that photo back for his book.

Personally I go back and forward between it being a camera and the reflection off the bottom of Oswald's coke bottle. I think a good case can be made for both at this stage.

However, with a better, high resolution scan.........well, you know the rest.

[Thomas Graves]

Thanks, Vanessa.

The film to which you link is interesting but typical. Typical because the narrator takes ambiguous data and out of the date makes assertions.

Assertions are opinions that masquerade as facts, which masquerade as "evidence".

The film to which you link is interesting but is unconvincing in some respects. For example, Billy Lovelady had an erect posture. The Billy Lovelady character in the 11-22-63 films had an unusual, head-thrusting-forward posture.

Thanks, Vanessa.

The film to which you link is interesting but typical. Typical because the narrator takes ambiguous data and out of the date makes assertions.

Assertions are opinions that masquerade as facts, which masquerade as "evidence".

The film to which you link is interesting but is unconvincing in some respects. For example, Billy Lovelady had an erect posture. The Billy Lovelady character in the 11-22-63 films had an unusual, head-thrusting-forward posture.

Dear Mr Tidd

"Billy Lovelady had an erect posture"?? I'm not sure what to make of that statement. Are you saying Billy Lovelady never stooped or bent over at all?

Billy Lovelady can be clearly seen in Altgens 6 leaning out past the TSBD entrance to look at the presidential motorcade which accounts for his 'head-thrusting-forward posture'.

Lovelady is also visible standing next to Prayer Man in Weigman as Bart points out in his film.

So Lovelady and his posture are not actually that relevant to the PM debate anymore except in so far as we know that Lovelady is not PM.

If that the only point you can criticise in the film?

Vanessa,

It's my personal opinion that Mr. Tidd doesn't like to look at JFK assassination films and photographs very closely because he thinks that they were all altered. I explained to him on another thread that the reason Lovelady's posture and positioning appear so different in the Altgens 6 still photograph and the Wiegman film clip is due to the wildly different angles of the photographers involved, plus the fact that Lovelady (who was by the center hand rail the whole time) leaned forward at a certain point.

But to no avail.

My only problem with Prayer Person's being Oswald is that in the Wiegman clip you can see Prayer Person lower a 35 mm camera (or a pair of binoculars) from his / her face. Was Oswald known to have taken a 35 mm camera or a pair of binoculars to work with him that day, or were either of those things found inside the TSBD after the assassination?

--Tommy

Oh. Thanks Tommy. I didn't realise that was Mr Tidd's view. I agree with you that it is the angle of the photographers and Lovelady's movement that makes those images look different. But it is still the same man.

I thought the jury was still out on the issue of what Oswald is holding or not holding. I thought we were all still divided between coke bottle, camera or binoculars. Linda has made a great case for it being a camera though.

I don't think there has ever been any mention of Oswald taking anything to or from work except for the lunch bag and curtain rods. So we're at a standstill on this issue, as far as I'm aware. But I'm not up on that aspect of the debate, Linda and Greg could probably fill you in better than me.

Barto has done a great, previously unseen, photo enhancement that shows something very bright in PM's hands but I think Barto is holding that photo back for his book.

Personally I go back and forward between it being a camera and the reflection off the bottom of Oswald's coke bottle. I think a good case can be made for both at this stage.

However, with a better, high resolution scan.........well, you know the rest.

Vanessa,

Thanks for replying.

I don't think Prayer Person is holding a twin lens reflex "viewfinder" camera (which Linda favors) or a Coke bottle because PP has both hands raised near his face, and lowers both of them at the same time in Wiegman, which leads me to believe that the glowing object in his hands is either a 35 mm camera or a pair of binoculars.

When I drink a bottle of Coke or Dr Pepper, I use only one hand.

--Tommy

Edited December 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Vanessa Loney]

Hello Dawn

Funny, how you are also prepared to come on here to debate PM and yet Duncan-like won't allow any of us on DP to discuss it. What are you lot so afraid of?

It's false rumour spreading and false uneducated statements like the above which continually get you suspended.

Discussion of Prayer Person is allowed. Perpetual repetative spamming of Prayer Person as a promotional tool for ROKC propaganda and book sales is not allowed.

Learn the difference and you will be fine.

Duncan

Is it not true that those members from RoKC who support Prayer Man as Oswald are all banned from posting on your forum and Deep Politics?

What repetitive spamming are you referring to? I've posted one link to Stan's book on your site (and got almost instantaneously banned weeks ago). I've posted one link to Barto's film on your site (and got suspended almost instantaneously a few days ago).

Duncan, if you really are in good faith about Prayer Man and free speech why did you delete every comment I've ever made on your forum as well as the supposed offending comment?

As far as I'm aware that does not happen on any other forum when a member is suspended or banned. It certainly doesn't happen on the EF.

Frankly I'm still mystified as to why I was suspended this last time.

[Vanessa Loney]

Apologies Tommy I haven't been following all the debates on EF as I've been on holidays. Isn't there still a question mark over whether Prayer Man's 'second hand' is in fact the radiator on the inside of the TSBD vestibule and the apparent movement a ripple effect that's a film artefact that Ed Ledoux has explained well on RoKC?

[Vanessa Loney]

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

I chimed in, opined that the figure had a male attitude, in my opinion.

I was attacked by Bart Kamp on ROKC, compared with Craig Lamson!

It was the latest personal attack I've taken from that forum.

A couple of the main guys there think I should have my head bashed in because I focus on the physical evidence in a murder case.

A couple of other main guys cast homo-erotic insinuations because I push the significance of "compartmentalization" in intelligence operations.

Their approach to the case suffers the same tragic flaw as Jim DiEugenio's -- they mistake a study of the Oswald assassination for a study of the Kennedy hit.

A teachable moment: never marry your Pet Theory.

Cliff, those are some strong statements. Do you have any evidence that you were threatened or bullied?

Ask Lee Farley and Hasan Yusuf if they felt threatened or bullied by my response.

Hi Cliff

My understanding is that you were banned after having a go at Hasan.

[Cliff Varnell]

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

I chimed in, opined that the figure had a male attitude, in my opinion.

I was attacked by Bart Kamp on ROKC, compared with Craig Lamson!

It was the latest personal attack I've taken from that forum.

A couple of the main guys there think I should have my head bashed in because I focus on the physical evidence in a murder case.

A couple of other main guys cast homo-erotic insinuations because I push the significance of "compartmentalization" in intelligence operations.

Their approach to the case suffers the same tragic flaw as Jim DiEugenio's -- they mistake a study of the Oswald assassination for a study of the Kennedy hit.

A teachable moment: never marry your Pet Theory.

Cliff, those are some strong statements. Do you have any evidence that you were threatened or bullied?

Ask Lee Farley and Hasan Yusuf if they felt threatened or bullied by my response.

Hi Cliff

My understanding is that you were banned after having a go at Hasan.

Vanessa, I only joined to go after Hasan and Lee after they disclosed a desire to see my head kicked in.

They acted like typical bullies do when they run into someone sharper.

Lee may well have wet himself.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

As far as ROKC goes, I'm not a big student of the Oswald assassination and the losers who made that happen.

I'm a student of the Kennedy assassination.

Those guys were the winners we never hear about.

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

Vanessa Loney,

Thanks for replying.

I don't think Prayer Person is holding a twin lens reflex "viewfinder" camera (which Linda favors) or a Coke bottle because PP has both hands raised near his face, and lowers both of them at the same time in Wiegman, which leads me to believe that the glowing object in his hands is either a 35 mm camera or a pair of binoculars.

When I drink a bottle of Coke or Dr Pepper, I use only one hand.

--Tommy

edited and bumped in a roundabout way

Edited December 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves