PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

[Bill Miller]

40 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Why would I ask all these questions only to purposely not want to understand? Makes no sense to me. If anything, you didn't make yourself clear the first time. But that's neither here nor there.

I now see that you believe the Feds had some kind of line they wouldn't cross in altering or hiding evidence. You believe they wouldn't engage in criminal activity when altering or hiding evidence.

So you do believe the Feds intentionally hid and altered evidence that threatened the official "Oswald alone did it" story? Just not in a criminal way?

You still are not citing me correctly. Any purposeful manipulating of the evidence to mislead or wrongly convict someone of a crime is criminal act and punishable by law. Misstating what a witnesses claims to have said has some wiggle room for plausible denial. But purposeful and obvious falsifying of the evidence would be another matter all together and in that case it could bring about serious consequences for all involved and that is why one would not want to be exposed as being involved after the fact in the murder of the President.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Bill Miller

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Just now, Bill Miller said:

 

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I now see that you believe the Feds had some kind of line they wouldn't cross in altering or hiding evidence. You believe they wouldn't engage in criminal activity when altering or hiding evidence.

So you do believe the Feds intentionally hid and altered evidence that threatened the official "Oswald alone did it" story? Just not in a criminal way?

You still are not citing me correctly. Any purposeful manipulating of the evidence to mislead or wrongly convict someone of a crime is criminal act and punishable by law. Misstating what a witnesses claims to have said has some wiggle room for plausible denial. But purposeful and obvious falsifying of the evidence would be another matter all together and in that case it could bring about serious consequences for all involved and that is why one would not want to be exposed as being involved after the fact in the murder of the President.

Okay. So you think the Feds did nothing (or very little) illegal in their cover-up. Is that right?

I guess I should first ask... do you believe there was a cover-up?

If evidence threatened the official "Oswald alone did it" story, did the Feds do anything to mitigate the threat?

[Andrej Stancak]

The FBI did commit multiple suspicious acts in the process of the immediate and also a later, permanent cover-up. The FBI seized a number of films/cameras directly at Dealey Plaza in the first minutes after the assassination. The FBI interrupted the chain of evidence by first requesting material evidence on the night of assassination which was flown to Washington and returned within one day, and again after one week when all evidence was sent to the FBI for good. In the process, the Minox camera has been eliminated from the list of items sent from Dallas to the FBI; the original six rolls of films depicting all items sent to the FBI was never returned to Dallas or shown to the public. The FBI issued an official report on the assassination within a very short period of time  which already had all lone-nut components in it; the Warren Commission worked within the lines of this report. The FBI was responsible for presenting all photographic evidence to the Warren Commission, and a number of testimonies. All inputs provided by the FBI aided only the lone-nut theory. The FBI deliberately provided a false explanation of Silvia Odio incident. There are much more knowledgeable people on this forum than myself who would be able to explain better the FBI's handling of evidence.

The FBI intimidated witnesses, interrogated the witnesses which might have objected the official line multiple times, and on several occasions simply said to the witnesses things such as:: "You never saw this" . 

What would be a sample though process of a person standing in the doorway who maybe spotted Oswald in his/her peripheral vision? 

Interrogator: Did you see Oswald during the assassination?

Witness: I was perplexed by what just happened in front of me and did not pay too much attention to people who were coming in to the doorway. He may or may not stand in the doorway. He certainly was not there before the motorcade appeared at Houston street as those of us standing there knew each other well, we were having a good chat, and Oswald was not with us. This I know for sure.

Interrogator: Its is very important for us to know if you have seen him or not in the doorway even later, after the assassination. Have you?

Witness: Now, when you mention it again, maybe I did see him. There could be in the doorway someone resembling the man which has been shown on TV on Friday.

Interrogator: Do you understand that Oswald was the assassin, he was shooting from the sixth floor. He also shot a police officer. You could not see him in the doorway, could you?

Witness: That's the point. I thought I have seen him, however, it is just impossible since he shot our beloved  President, therefore, I must be mistaken.

Interrogator: All right, Let me then write for the record that you did not see Oswald during or just after the assassination.

 

 

 

  

Edited December 29, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Bill Miller]

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay. So you think the Feds did nothing (or very little) illegal in their cover-up. Is that right?

I did not say that either. I said that the Feds had to be careful how to pick and choose their battles so-to-speak. Running up to witnesses and saying they better not say they saw Oswald out front watching the parade is a bit extreme in my opinion. And to save you a lot of time ... those that have known me over the years and participated in the endless discussions of the evidence with me will tell you that I have been one of the more vocal researchers about there being a cover-up in the murder of the President. Several post ago I believe I mentioned how the rifle that sits in the National Archives and said to be the gun that belongs to Oswald is too long to have been the one Lee bought. I am certain that I posted how the WC attorneys went out of their way to not probe into what witnesses meant by the large avulsion in the rear of the President's head. As far as I am aware - I am the first one to animate stabilized frames from the Wiegman film to show there was indeed smoke that drifted through the trees next to the stockade fence just as witnesses had described seeing. I was also the first person to ever find the corresponding evidence in the Zapruder film. This does not even scratch the surface of the evidence I have seen in the case of the President's murder that pointed to there being a conspiracy right through to Dennis David's seeing the slides and film of JFK's head wound that isn't reflected in the official autopsy photos. None of these things preclude Patrolman Baker from meeting Oswald in the lunchroom any more than a witness stating that they did not see Lee out on the steps with them. There very well may be a good image depicting Oswald outside at the time of the shooting - no one has yet to produce it.

[Guest]

Quote

None of these things preclude Patrolman Baker from meeting Oswald in the lunchroom any more than a witness stating that they did not see Lee out on the steps with them. There very well may be a good image depicting Oswald outside at the time of the shooting - no one has yet to produce it.

Baker did not meet Oswald in the lunch room, that is debunked.

I think the ROKC scan we produced is already a much better image, and let's face it there is no other candidate!

No one said they stood there, nor did anypone else see they knew the person standing there.

Yet there was no stranger either...

Come on Bill have a guess????

Office worker?

Manager?

Labourer?

How many white labourers were there working at the TSBD?

Exactly.......

Besides Lovelady, Frazier, Daugherty and Oswald who else was catagorised like that?

[Bill Miller]

3 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Baker did not meet Oswald in the lunch room, that is debunked.

I think the ROKC scan we produced is already a much better image, and let's face it there is no other candidate!

No one said they stood there, nor did anypone else see they knew the person standing there.

Yet there was no stranger either...

Come on Bill have a guess????

Office worker?

Manager?

Labourer?

How many white labourers were there working at the TSBD?

Exactly.......

Besides Lovelady, Frazier, Daugherty and Oswald who else was catagorised like that?

So now you want me to compound this issue with another guess. I say find better proof if seeker more guesses is what you are need of.

[Guest]

You are preaching to the choir Bill, that is what we are doing.

What will be your part besides this deep state of denial?

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

 

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay. So you think the Feds did nothing (or very little) illegal in their cover-up. Is that right?

I did not say that either.

Well it's been hard nailing your position down. In answering my many questions, it seems you have been slowly morphing your position from saying the Feds wouldn't do anything criminal to -- I take it now -- that they would do something criminal if they had to. (Which, I believe, is what I asked at the very beginning.)

I said that the Feds had to be careful how to pick and choose their battles so-to-speak. Running up to witnesses and saying they better not say they saw Oswald out front watching the parade is a bit extreme in my opinion. And to save you a lot of time ... those that have known me over the years and participated in the endless discussions of the evidence with me will tell you that I have been one of the more vocal researchers about there being a cover-up in the murder of the President. Several post ago I believe I mentioned how the rifle that sits in the National Archives and said to be the gun that belongs to Oswald is too long to have been the one Lee bought. I am certain that I posted how the WC attorneys went out of their way to not probe into what witnesses meant by the large avulsion in the rear of the President's head. As far as I am aware - I am the first one to animate stabilized frames from the Wiegman film to show there was indeed smoke that drifted through the trees next to the stockade fence just as witnesses had described seeing. I was also the first person to ever find the corresponding evidence in the Zapruder film. This does not even scratch the surface of the evidence I have seen in the case of the President's murder that pointed to there being a conspiracy right through to Dennis David's seeing the slides and film of JFK's head wound that isn't reflected in the official autopsy photos. None of these things preclude Patrolman Baker from meeting Oswald in the lunchroom any more than a witness stating that they did not see Lee out on the steps with them. There very well may be a good image depicting Oswald outside at the time of the shooting - no one has yet to produce it.

Okay. So you think the Feds would do something illegal, but only if they had to. (Generally speaking.) Is that right?

So if evidence threatened the official "Oswald alone did it" story, the Feds would do something to mitigate that threat, even something illegal if necessary. Right?

[Bill Miller]

22 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay. So you think the Feds would do something illegal, but only if they had to. (Generally speaking.) Is that right?

So if evidence threatened the official "Oswald alone did it" story, the Feds would do something to mitigate that threat, even something illegal if necessary. Right?

I have been quite clear about my position and cannot see how to make it any simpler to follow without possibly resorting to the use of sock puppets.         Misstating a witness's remark is one thing and can be dealt with a lot easier than blatantly conspiring to enter false evidence into a murder investigation involving the death of a U.S. President. The prior may not look good, but it won't get you hung like the latter would.

As far as your not nailing down my position - that is rubbish in my view. Your problem has been in trying to get me to alter my position to fit what you would want it to be.  And again it has nothing to do with the theory that the 'powers that be' prevented anyone from saying that Lee Oswald was outside with them.

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

I have been quite clear about my position and cannot see how to make it any simpler to follow without possibly resorting to the use of sock puppets.         Misstating a witness's remark is one thing and can be dealt with a lot easier than blatantly conspiring to enter false evidence into a murder investigation involving the death of a U.S. President. The prior may not look good, but it won't get you hung like the latter would.

As far as your not nailing down my position - that is rubbish in my view. Your problem has been in trying to get me to alter my position to fit what you would want it to be.  And again it has nothing to do with the theory that the 'powers that be' prevented anyone from saying that Lee Oswald was outside with them.

Bill,

Days ago I asked you if you "believe [the Feds] would NOT engage in criminal activity when altering or hiding evidence?"

Your reply was, "I did not say that.... I said that the Feds had to be careful how to pick and choose their battles so-to-speak."

So I said, "Okay. So you think the Feds WOULD do something illegal, but only if they had to. Is that right?"

Now you reply by claiming you've been "quite clear" about your position.

 

No, Bill, you haven't been clear at all about your position. All I've wanted to know is whether or not you believe the Feds would have done something illegal in their cover up. And you won't tell me. You just keep giving these long speeches that leave me wondering.

Why won't you tell me whether or not you believe the Feds would have done something illegal in their cover-up?

 

(P.S. I know that in your last post, quoted above, you make it sound AGAIN like you think the Feds would NOT have done anything illegal. But I also know -- after this many go-arounds -- that if I accept and repeat that, you will once again tell me that that is not what you said.)

Edited January 1, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Bill Miller]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

No, Bill, you haven't been clear at all about your position. All I've wanted to know is whether or not you believe the Feds would have done something illegal in their cover up. And you won't tell me. You just keep giving these long speeches that leave me wondering.

You have been given examples of my position. Here is one such example from one of my previous resonses:  " I believe there was evidence that some agents within the FBI purposely misstated a witness. Julia Ann Mercer saying she recognized the man driving the truck below the knoll as being Jack Ruby would be one such example."

Now if you are unsure if I think that purposely misstating what a witness said in a official report involving a murder investigation is legal or not - the answer is it would be illegal, and I would not think anyone taking on the Kennedy Assassination would think otherwise.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Bill Miller

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

You have been given examples of my position. Here is one such example from one of my previous resonses:  " I believe there was evidence that some agents within the FBI purposely misstated a witness. Julia Ann Mercer saying she recognized the man driving the truck below the knoll as being Jack Ruby would be one such example."

Now if you are unsure if I think that purposely misstating what a witness said in a official report involving a murder investigation is legal or not - the answer is it would be illegal, and I would not think anyone taking on the Kennedy Assassination would think otherwise.

Thank you, Bill.

[Bill Miller]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thank you, Bill.

You are welcome for both times I had posted this.

[Guest]

On 12/29/2016 at 5:17 PM, Claude Barnabe said:

about the Weigman & Darnell films:

Visited the UNT research library which houses the NBC5/KXAS(WBAP) films. The site has a disclaimer, " The collection does not contain footage related to John F. Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963. If you are interested in licensing this footage, you need to contact NBC Universal" .

Next I visited the NBCUniversal archives site. I did a search of the Weigman/Darnell footage, got no results. If it exists on the NBC site, the footage may be embedded in one of the extant motorcade films at the archive. Some footage has previews but most do not. Films without previews contain a descriptive text. I searched and found something that I thought may be of interest. I followed the procedures and submitted my request. I received a return email stating that the archive no longer licenses to individuals, only business-to-business. Search goes on.

 

Your information is correct, we have been thru the motions and then some in 2015 I made a draft blog post that has been in draft mode for more than a year.Think it;s time to pub that thing soon as soon I get a few more bits cleared up.

The Wiegman film is shown as part of  their archives, but the quality is rubbish since it comes from 3/4" video tape.

What was it that caught your interest?

 

[Bill Miller]

9 hours ago, Ed LeDoux said:

Perhaps Bill can help you license the film under his Sasquatch Tour Company.

Not sure what the point it is that you are trying to make, Ed. Perhaps you can offer a rational and logical reason for why my outdoor adventure touring company would get involved in helping with the licensing of any JFK assassination films?