Then went outside to watch the P. parade

[François Carlier]

2 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

His "proof" is the Warren Commission said it.

Congratulations, for a very interesting post ! Keep up the good work !

[Sandy Larsen]

37 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I am inclined to believe that Oswald was in the 1st floor lunchroom when shots rang out which should satisfy our LN colleagues here (Oswald was in the building during the shooting)

 

Andrej,

I fear that you've been studying the evidence and using reason so intently that you've forgotten what our LN colleagues believe... that Oswald was not only in the building at the time of the shooting, but was on the sixth floor holding a rifle. Certainly not in the first floor lunchroom.  

But given how farfetched their beliefs are, it's a reasonable mistake to make.

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Sandy Larsen

[François Carlier]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

"It has been proven" that Oswald was inside the TSBD during the shooting? Really? I would be interested to see this proof, if M. Carlier would be so kind as to provide it.

Hosty's notes are now the earliest known account by Oswald of his movements at around the time of the shooting. They contradict later accounts, including the FBI agent James Bookhout's version of the interview in question (Warren Report, p.619), which has Oswald performing the following sequence of actions:

1 - shortly after the shooting, he bought a drink in the second-floor lunchroom;
2 - he was accosted by the policeman Marrion Baker;
3 - he took his drink down to the first-floor domino room, where he ate his lunch;
4 - he went outside and "stood around for five or ten minutes";
5 - and finally he went home.

We can be sure that Bookhout's sequence of events is incorrect, for two reasons. Firstly, the earliest and most reliable statements by two TSBD employees have Oswald eating his lunch before, not after, the shooting (Eddie Piper: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.499; Charles Givens: Commission Document 5, p.329, and http://22november1963.org.uk/meagher-the-curious-testimony-of-mr-givens). Secondly, Bookhout's version requires Oswald to have hung around the book depository for far longer than anyone has been able to demonstrate. It is certainly incompatible with the official account of Oswald's movements, which has him leaving the building only three minutes after the shooting, far too soon for Oswald to have performed all the actions Bookhout described.

Hosty's notes surely provide an accurate version of what Oswald claimed to have done:

1 - before the shooting, he visited the second-floor lunchroom, where he bought a drink;
2 - he went down to the first-floor domino room to eat his lunch;
3 - and finally he went outside to watch the parade.

Not only is Oswald's genuine alibi more coherent than the later version of it put forward by the authorities, but there is evidence to support each element of the alibi:

1 - Carolyn Arnold claimed to have seen Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom at around 12:15 (http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald; if you prefer her earlier account, of seeing him on the first floor at around 12:25, that too exonerates Oswald). Oswald's behaviour was not unusual; that day, another warehouse employee bought a drink on the second floor and then went down to the first floor (James Jarman: Hearings, vol.3, p.201).
2 - Bookhout's account includes a remark by Oswald that he had seen "two Negro employees", of whom one was called 'Junior' and the other was short, in the vicinity of the domino room while he was eating his lunch. James 'Junior' Jarman (Hearings, vol.3, pp.201-202) and the vertically challenged Harold Norman (Hearings, vol.3, pp.189-190) testified that they had entered the building at around 12:25, using the rear entrance, which would have taken them right past the domino room.
3 - There is photographic evidence of someone who looks remarkably like Oswald, standing by the front doors of the TSBD during the shooting.

It all fits: Oswald went up to the second-floor lunchroom briefly to buy a drink, he returned to the first floor and ate his lunch in the domino room, he was there until at least 12:25, and then he went outside to watch the parade.

If that is what happened, the second-floor encounter with Baker and Roy Truly almost certainly didn't. It is conceivable that Oswald went back inside immediately after the shooting, dashed up to the second-floor lunchroom, and bought a drink, all in time to meet Baker and Truly. This seems unlikely, though, because it would require Baker and Truly to have gone up to the second floor noticeably later than the official account claims, and because Oswald had already been up there to obtain a drink, probably less than half an hour earlier.

There are other reasons to doubt the reality of the second-floor encounter:

- Marrion Baker's earliest account fails to mention it, a surprising omission considering that Oswald was actually in the room with him when Baker wrote his account (Hearings, vol.3 pp.257-258), though Baker does mention an encounter on the third or fourth floor with someone who did not match Oswald's description.
- The official account of the second-floor encounter was ridiculously malleable, going through several versions as each placement of Oswald was found to be incompatible with the timing of the alleged assassin's dash downstairs. First of all, Oswald was in the lunchroom, drinking a Coke. Then he was merely purchasing the Coke. Then he was sitting at a table. Finally, he wasn't actually in the lunchroom at all but in the vestibule on his way into the lunchroom.
- Oswald apparently did mention an encounter with a policeman in a vestibule, but this was the vestibule by the main entrance to the building, not the one by the lunchroom (Harry Holmes: Hearings, vol.7, pp.302, 305-306). Oswald's account is corroborated by Billy Lovelady, reported at second-hand by James Jarman, who witnessed an encounter between Oswald and a policeman by the main entrance as Oswald was on his way out of the building (see my post above for a transcript of Jarman's recollections).

I used to assume that the second-floor encounter had actually happened, partly because I wasn't aware of any reason to question it and partly because it didn't make sense for the authorities to invent an account which pretty much rules out Oswald as the sixth-floor gunman (see Howard Roffman, Presumed Guilty, chapter 8: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html). But I'm finding it difficult now to avoid the conclusion that Oswald's encounter with a policeman by the front doors was transposed to the second floor as a desperate (and, as it turned out, not very successful) way of negating Oswald's alibi.

Now, where's the proof that Oswald was inside the whole time?

Is that all you've got ?
Ok, I have read your post carefully.
Let's sum up :

- you have nobody, absolutely no-one, no witness, zero, zilch, who says that they saw Oswald outside (namely on the steps, watching the motorcade). That's only what you suppose.

- I have two people (Marrion Baker and Roy Truly) who say that they saw Oswald inside the building.

Two for me, zero for you --> I win, heads down !

Besides, there is another person who provides me with confirmation : Lee Oswald himself. Yes, not only did he say to the press that he was "in the building at that time" and he never, ever said that he had been outside (neither to the press, not to his brother or wife !!!!!!), but Fritz's notes show that Oswald admitted to the second floor encounter ("claims 2nd floor Coke when officer came in").

Moreover, all the witnesses you quote talk about seeing Oswald inside the building.

I win again. It's sooooo easy !!!!

Now, you may say that Fritz's notes are fake. But then, why would you trust Hosty's notes ?

There is one thing that you must understand : it is dangerous to select evidence. Among the numerous witnesses' statements, a researcher can easily find bits of information here and there to fit any pre-determined theory. But they are mutually exclusive, most of the time. You have to separate facts from fiction and that's difficult and requires an open mind and honesty and more importantly no bias ! Otherwise, anybody can pretend to have evidence to support almost any theory that they invent...

Remember this :

Watson : "This is indeed a mystery. What do you imagine that it means ? "         
Holmes : "I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

What I am saying is that you (I mean, you and all the "prayer man" group, here) are making the mistake of twisting facts to suit your "prayer man" theory . But you don't seem to even realize it.

You can pretend that Oswald was "prayer man" only by accusing Marrion Baker and Roy Truly of lying. That's bad. That's defamation. That's an easy cop out. That's really shameful.

-> Just think : "Oh, two people said that they talked to Oswald on the second floor ? That's bothering me, since I have a theory that needs Oswald to be outside. Well, never mind, let's pretend that those two men were lying and I'm home free !".

That behavior may be convenient for you but it is not honest. It's bad. it's wrong.

And I'm not even talking about the logic in all that. For years, conspiracy theorists have tried to use the Baker-Truly-Oswald encounter to show that Oswald couldn't have been on the sixth floor, since he would not have had enough time to come donwstairs. And now, to try to suit a new theory, all of a sudden, the Baker-Truly-Oswald encounter has ceased to exist...

Will that encounter come back into existence when still another new theory appears in a few years ?

It reminds me of the Zapruder film issue. For years, the head snap was used to show that shots were fired from the front. Then some conspiracy theorists claimed that the Zapruder film had been faked, which prevented researchers from using anything in it as an argument against the official version. Until the Zapruder film sort of came back when everybody finally realized that it was never faked (and that was just an idiotic theory).

The same will apply here. Bart Kamp is to "prayer man" what Jim Fetzer was to the Zapruder film or Barr McClellan to the Wallace finger print : a spokesman for a new theory that will only last temporarily and eventually die down and disappear.

Mark my words !

Edited February 14, 2019 by François Carlier

[B. A. Copeland]

15 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

It reminds me of the Zapruder film issue. For years, the head snap was used to show that shots were fired from the front. Then some conspiracy theorists claimed that the Zapruder film had been faked, which prevented researchers from using anything in it as an argument against the official version. Until the Zapruder film sort of came back when everybody finally realized that it was never faked (and that was just an idiotic theory).

The same will apply here. Bart Kamp is to "prayer man" what Jim Fetzer was to the Zapruder film or Barr McClellan to the Wallace finger print : a spokesman for a new theory that will only last temporarily and eventually die down and disappear.

Mark my words !

Talk to Sydney Wilkinson, Thom Whitehead and the many film professionals who recognize anomalies with the film. There is full blown fakery and then theres alteration, making visual "edits."

As for your comment on Kamp, his research is top notch, period. To even compare him to those to is rather unfortunate and shows your ignorance of his analysis. I'll say it again: regardless of who you think Prayer Man is, the person must be accounted for for anyone proposing a theory as to what occurred in Dallas that terrible day. You must account for who that individual is and provide arguments and evidence to support your hypothesis.

[François Carlier]

1 minute ago, B. A. Copeland said:

I'll say it again: regardless of who you think Prayer Man is, the person must be accounted for for anyone proposing a theory as to what occurred in Dallas that terrible day. You must account for who that individual is and provide arguments and evidence to support your hypothesis.

I agree. I'd love to know who that person is.

Those who work hard to find who that person was have all my support.

(But those who accuse honest men of being l-i-a-r-s just to suit their theories have my contempt !)

[David Von Pein]

17 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

regardless of who you think Prayer Man is, the person must be accounted for for anyone proposing a theory as to what occurred in Dallas that terrible day. You must account for who that individual is and provide arguments and evidence to support your hypothesis.

That's ridiculous. The PM figure doesn't need to be identified in order to provide a reasonable theory of the shooting. You might as well also say that every person in this Z-Film frame below needs to be IDed in order to come to any conclusion about this case. And why would anyone think that?

There were dozens of people who were in Dealey Plaza who very likely will never be officially identified, including the beloved "Prayer Man". But that doesn't suddenly erase the fact that all the physical evidence points to Oswald as the killer.

It's my opinion that you simply cannot have this much evidence pointing directly at one individual (Oswald) and still have that individual being innocent.

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Vanessa Loney]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks Jeremy.

It appears that Jarman's account of Oswald going outside has him leaving a number of minutes after the shooting. So this cannot be added to the list of accounts of Oswald being on the steps or near the  front door during the shooting.

 

Thanks guys but no. Jarman is saying Lovelady told him about the incident after he Jarman came outside.

Lovelady told Jarman that Oswald was stopped by the policeman at the front door as he was on his way in. This has to be referring to Baker coming in the front door of the building right after the assassination.

Jarman was stopped by another officer and ordered back in to the building after the shooting. As some time after this Lovelady told him about Oswald.

 

 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Vanessa Loney said:

Thanks guys but no. Jarman is saying Lovelady told him about the incident after he Jarman came outside.

Lovelady told Jarman that Oswald was stopped by the policeman at the front door as he was on his way in. This has to be referring to Baker coming in the front door of the building right after the assassination.

Jarman was stopped by another officer and ordered back in to the building after the shooting. As some time after this Lovelady told him about Oswald.

 

 

[Rob Couteau]

Hi Bart, I just want to say thanks for this thread. Fascinating stuff and an absolutely crucial piece of evidence. It gives special resonance to that exchange between Lovelady and Ball, when Lovelady is cut off when he's about to identify who was standing next to him on the steps:

Mr. BALL - Who was with you? 
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me 
Mr. BALL - What was that last name? 
Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton. 
Mr. BALL - What is the first name? 
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley. 
Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name? 
Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton. 
Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps 
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes. 

[Guest]

Hi Rob, thanks and you are most welcome. Yes that slip up by Lovelady is a one of its kind. Yet Dingo Brian Doyle uses it as proof that Stanton is Prayer Man.

I am just amazed and the overall response to this one sheet of paper, and the veracity of the so called responses by 'the other side' speaks volumes. As they slowly realise that none of their arguments stick.

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Bart Kamp

[Denny Zartman]

22 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Hi Rob, thanks and you are most welcome. Yes that slip up by Lovelady is a one of its kind. Yet Dingo Brian Doyle uses it as proof that Stanton is Prayer Man.

I am just amazed and the overall response to this one sheet of paper, and the veracity of the so called responses by 'the other side' speaks volumes. As they slowly realise that none of their argument stick.

 

I think it's a significant find, and I also thank you for bringing it to our attention. It's an important piece of the puzzle.

[Guest]

Thank you Denny, soon I will post another significant 'find'

[Ron Bulman]

"I heard that Oswald... came down the front stairs and he was stopped by the officer... Mr. Trudy told them that was alright he worked here, … billy love lady said that Mr. Trudy told the policeman that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on down the stairs."

Bada Bing.  Bada BOOM! 

[B. A. Copeland]

On 2/14/2019 at 1:53 PM, David Von Pein said:

That's ridiculous. The PM figure doesn't need to be identified in order to provide a reasonable theory of the shooting. You might as well also say that every person in this Z-Film frame below needs to be IDed in order to come to any conclusion about this case. And why would anyone think that?

There were dozens of people who were in Dealey Plaza who won't ever be officially identified, including the beloved "Prayer Man". But that doesn't suddenly erase the fact that all the physical evidence points to Oswald as the killer.

It's my opinion that you simply cannot have this much evidence pointing directly at one individual (Oswald) and still have that individual being innocent.

 

I somewhat agree with you (we don’t need to ID everyone but....perhaps it would somehow help when connecting dots) though perhaps my wording leads you to respond in such a way as to say that everyone needs to be ID’ in order to know what happened. That could actually be true. I mean think of the film and video footage that had been confiscated never to return and how it would assist us in identifying those in the plaza. Suppose we ID someone who has been ID’ elsewhere, say, Anti-Castro Cuban training camps, etc.It would help.

My position is that, if we concern ourselves with accusing LHO, we should be more certain than not that the person standing in front of that vestibule of the entrance to the TSBD is not LHO. We need not ID every spectator in Dealey though that would be incredible if we could. I speak primarily of the TSBD and it’s inhabitants or those closest to the bldg. as far LHO being an alleged assassin is concerned.

The evidence point towards LHO is too weak today (and even then which, in my humble opinion) why he had to die...Simpich lays a strong theory that even the alphabet agencies were in at risk as agencies because of LHO and his relationship with them.

As far as evidence we still need to learn who called in the “5’10, 165lbs” to Sawyer. We also need to know who the living hell was impersonating LHO at Odio’s AND in Mexico City. See with those questions and anomalies I’ll never be confident accusing the guy. I don’t think anyone should be confident I’m accusing him with said facts.

Edited February 18, 2019 by B. A. Copeland

[Tony Krome]

1 hour ago, B. A. Copeland said:

 

As far as evidence we still need to learn who called in the “5’10, 165lbs” to Sawyer. 

For those who want to read more on the relevance of “5’10, 165lbs”, click below;

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter6.html