Then went outside to watch the P. parade

[François Carlier]

6 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

François Carlier has now provided us with the justification for his dogmatic assertion that "it has been proven" that Oswald was inside during the shooting:

The "proof" is this:

(a) - Baker and Truly said so, and it is inconceivable that they didn't tell the truth.
(b) - Oswald told a reporter that he was in the building when the president was shot.
(c) - Oswald never claimed that he had been outside.
(d) - According to Fritz's notes, Oswald admitted that the second-floor encounter was true.

I'm surprised that M. Carlier didn't mention Howard Brennan, one of the least reliable witnesses in the whole JFK case, who claimed that he saw Oswald in the sixth-floor window, then changed his mind, then changed his mind again.

(a) - Baker and Truly told the truth

Is it really inconceivable to M. Carlier that Baker and Truly might have been put under pressure to change their story by transposing an encounter on the first floor to the second floor? As I pointed out, we know that other aspects of the story changed over time: Oswald was said to have encountered Baker when drinking a Coke, when purchasing a Coke, when sitting at a table, and when in the vestibule. At least three of those four accounts must have been wrong.

There is a court case here in England at the moment to do with the Hillsborough disaster, in which 96 people were crushed and suffocated to death in a football stadium in 1989, largely due to the incompetence of the police who were on duty that day. There is a good account of it here: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades. Its relevance to this case is that no fewer than 164 statements by police officers were found by an official investigation to have been fabricated. Almost all of these statements were fabricated not to protect the officers themselves but to protect their superiors and the institution they were part of.

Not only that, but the police repeatedly blamed the deaths on the behaviour of the victims, despite knowing that this claim was false. As in the JFK case, the false statements were repeated uncritically by the press and by politicians and others who identified with the interests of the police. Many of these people reacted to suggestions that the police may have been less than entirely honest in much the same way as M. Carlier reacted ("That's bad. That's defamation. That's an easy cop out. That's really shameful.").

As bad as the South Yorkshire police were in the 1980s, the Dallas police in the early 1960s were worse. Will Fritz famously had a 98% conviction rate, not because his officers were super-human investigators or because the criminals in Dallas were especially incompetent, but because of the institutional culture which involved, among many other things, falsifying evidence. Twisting the arms of Baker and Truly would have been utterly trivial when compared to what else the Dallas police routinely got up to. Several witnesses in the JFK case claimed to have been put under pressure to either keep quiet or change their stories, including Buell Frazier, as Vanessa Loney points out on page 21 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25532-then-went-outside-to-watch-the-p-parade/?do=findComment&comment=394708). What's so special about Baker and Truly?

(b) - Oswald admitted that he was in the building

Bart Kamp dealt with that one earlier, on page 2 of this thread (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25532-then-went-outside-to-watch-the-p-parade/?do=findComment&comment=394161😞

Oswald was not claiming that he was in the building when the president was shot.

(c) - Oswald "never, ever said that he had been outside"

But he did. That's what this whole thread is about! Oswald specifically stated that he went outside to watch the parade. As I pointed out, Oswald's statement is consistent with statements by Carolyn Arnold, James Jarman, Harold Norman and Billy Lovelady, not to mention the Darnell and Wiegman films. There is a solid body of evidence to support what we now know Oswald to have claimed: that he visited the second floor briefly, that he descended to the first floor, that he saw Jarman and Norman enter the building at around 12:25, and that he finally went outside to watch the parade.

(d) - Fritz's notes

Here is the relevant section of the notes in full:

A perfectly reasonable interpretation of these notes is that Oswald is claiming that he got a Coke from the second floor, and that when the officer entered the first floor of the building Oswald was having his lunch outside, at the front of the building, and that Bill Shelley was there too. The only element which differs from Hosty's version is that, according to Fritz, Oswald may have claimed that he was still having his lunch while standing outside watching the parade. The person in the doorway who looks like Oswald may well have been having his lunch; he appears to have something in his hand, and a Coke bottle was later photographed in that location on the steps. There is no significant discrepancy between Hosty's notes and Fritz's.

Who is claiming that Fritz's notes were faked? I certainly didn't. If the notes contain inaccuracies, that might be because they were written after the event and were based on James Bookhout's notes (which no longer exist, unless they are sitting in the National Archives, waiting to be discovered), as Sean Murphy pointed out in 2013: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20354-oswald-leaving-tsbd/?page=40.

"It has been proven that he was inside"

Does M. Carlier really think that what he has put forward amounts to "proof"? It is nothing of the sort. As any rational person can see, it has not remotely been proven that Oswald was inside during the shooting. There is some evidence which suggests that he was inside, and there is some evidence which suggests that he was outside. If someone thinks that the first set of evidence makes more sense to them than the second set, fine. But it does not amount to proof of anything.

François Carlier's "proof" is merely his subjective interpretation of an ambiguous body of evidence. The fact that he puts this subjective interpretation forward as a dogmatic assertion tells us that he is seriously lacking in critical thinking skills, and that his mental processes are no different from those of a religious fundamentalist.

I've read your very subjective post.
Actually, it's not only subjective, it is also insulting. I resent that.
I see that you belong to the self-delusion group. I'm very sorry for you. It appears that there is nothing anybody can do at this stage. Maybe a physician ?
I have given you a lot of evidence, but you don't care, as you are obviously not here to search for the truth but simply to waste your time and other people's time.
That's sad.
The fact that you dare talk about critical thinking, when it is obvious that you don't even know what it is is laughable, really !
Of course, I could repeat my arguments over and over again, but conspiracy theorists like you not only have blinkers, they have a very thick blindfold.
I shall not waste any more time for ridiculous people like you.

I see that you have answered NOT ONE of the points that I have raised in this thread. I'm not surprised.

By the way, Buel Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady were there. You were not. They said that Oswald was not there. But you believe that he was. OK, good for you. You can also claim that Lady Di was there too, if that pleases you. I just don't care.

As to your wild accusations (everybody was lying but Oswald), you know what you can do with them..

[François Carlier]

6 minutes ago, Vanessa Loney said:

With all due respect Francois, you are a numpty.

David, what do you have to say about Frazier?

 

And I am not allowed to tell you what I think of you

[François Carlier]

30 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Fracois: please, count me in.

So, where do we go from here now? The living witnesses, Mr. Frazier and Mr. Lewis, should be asked who was the unknown man standing at the western wall of the Depository doorway.  Also, a letter (petition?) should be sent to the Sixth Floor Museum requesting a digital copy of just one frame of Darnell film (the one we all use, the sharpest one). The letter should point to this new evidence and ask for collaboration. I am not a US citizen and cannot help in that, however, it may be worthy to contact a member of the Congress and/or member of Oswald's or Kennedy's family to support this request. There must be a way to break the unnecessary lock-down for this film. I can help with providing an overlay of Oswald's figure onto Prayer Man and explaining why Prayer Man could only be a person 5'9'' (meaning a male and male of Oswald's body height), however, the letter could well go without any of my data. 

Hello Andrej,
Why not do all of that ? I certainly don't mind.
Any attempts at knowing more and answering questions is a good thing. Of course, I personally believe that it is a waste of time.
Again, I would like to remind you that Buell Wesley Frazier was there and Billy Lovelady was there too. We already have their statements : they categorically say that they did not see Oswald there, and Lovelady said that he was chatting / talking to the other employees there.
(Have you listened to the Lovelady interview ?)
Any statement made 55 years later would have less impact, but as I said, I would be happy to ask the question to Buell Frazier, as I would love to see high-quality films or pictures of that area.
To me the question is already settled.
You seem to be a calm and honest researcher. I sincerely wish you good luck !

[John Butler]

43 minutes ago, Vanessa Loney said:

With all due respect Francois, you are a numpty.

David, what do you have to say about Frazier?

 

Numpty?  Is that like a guy with zero intelligence?  Should we address Francois as Numpty Francois from now on so that no mistake is made about his character. 

Please tell me more.  What does numpty mean?

Edited February 16, 2019 by John Butler

[Andrej Stancak]

51 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Hello Andrej,
Why not do all of that ? I certainly don't mind.
Any attempts at knowing more and answering questions is a good thing. Of course, I personally believe that it is a waste of time.
Again, I would like to remind you that Buell Wesley Frazier was there and Billy Lovelady was there too. We already have their statements : they categorically say that they did not see Oswald there, and Lovelady said that he was chatting / talking to the other employees there.
(Have you listened to the Lovelady interview ?)
Any statement made 55 years later would have less impact, but as I said, I would be happy to ask the question to Buell Frazier, as I would love to see high-quality films or pictures of that area.
To me the question is already settled.
You seem to be a calm and honest researcher. I sincerely wish you good luck !

Francois:

I see no point in repeating again all the reasons for exploring the possibility that Oswald was Prayer Man. Jeremy and others have summarised some main points excellently. Something important happened last week and I would like that we take this forward and make another step. 

It may be worthy to understand where we differ the most in our opinions. 

1. There was a massive cover-up involving manipulations with evidence, suppressing some testimonies and advising people what to say and what not to say. This cover-up was government-led and it continues until today. There is no way that any US president would ever reveal the most secret information pertaining to this case. A very large number of documents have been released but not the most important ones. We may never see those documents which would shed light on the case (e.g., Oswald's tax records, destroyed SS documents). In contrast, you believe that there was no cover-up, and it is only the conspiracy theorist's mind which craves for data which do not exist.

2. We attribute different weights to Hosty's and Fritz'/Bookhout's testimonies. This most recent finding (Hosty's notes) is a breakthrough because it brought to daylight a recording from the very first interrogation before any cover-up could kick in. Hosty's notes were made as Oswald spoke. The validity of these notes is incomparable to the validity of e.g., Fritz's notes which I gather were drafted maybe years after the interrogation using Bookhout's notes as the template. As cover-up was in place already on the evening of November 22 ("the case is cinched"), any post-hoc elaborated notes would contain references to incriminating information which Oswald never said. Hosty does not mention the 2nd-floor encounter and as his notes were authentic (similar to a stenographic record), it is for this reason that the scenario without the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter is the more likely version of events. You instead do not have any doubts about the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter.

3. We also differ in interpreting "in" and "out" in the context of Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting. Those believing in the veracity of Hosty's notes say that Oswald had lunch in the first-floor lunchroom when shots rang out. (I would say when the first shot rang out). Thus it is possible to say he was in the building during the shooting, and that he did not watch the motorcade. Oswald moved to the front and got to the doorway just seconds after the last shot and we see him at the western wall as Prayer Man. So, he saw a tail of the motorcade (in a way he saw part of the parade) and he surely saw the excitement. He surely was in the vicinity of Mr. Shelley just seconds after the shooting. In contrast, you believe that Oswald was shooting at the President during this critical period and that he was buying another Coke when Baker entered the lunchroom. 

It is impossible to resolve these differences at this stage. I hope more new data will pop up and that Darnell and Wiegman films will be eventually given to the public as Z-film was. 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrew Prutsok]

1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

I've read your very subjective post.
Actually, it's not only subjective, it is also insulting. I resent that.
I see that you belong to the self-delusion group. I'm very sorry for you. It appears that there is nothing anybody can do at this stage. Maybe a physician ?
I have given you a lot of evidence, but you don't care, as you are obviously not here to search for the truth but simply to waste your time and other people's time.
That's sad.
The fact that you dare talk about critical thinking, when it is obvious that you don't even know what it is is laughable, really !
Of course, I could repeat my arguments over and over again, but conspiracy theorists like you not only have blinkers, they have a very thick blindfold.
I shall not waste any more time for ridiculous people like you.

I see that you have answered NOT ONE of the points that I have raised in this thread. I'm not surprised.

By the way, Buel Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady were there. You were not. They said that Oswald was not there. But you believe that he was. OK, good for you. You can also claim that Lady Di was there too, if that pleases you. I just don't care.

As to your wild accusations (everybody was lying but Oswald), you know what you can do with them..

You usually have to go to Facebook to witness people in the throes of nervous breakdowns flail around like this.

[François Carlier]

2 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Francois:

I see no point in repeating again all the reasons for exploring the possibility that Oswald was Prayer Man. Jeremy and others have summarised some main points excellently. Something important happened last week and I would like that we take this forward and make another step. 

It may be worthy to understand where we differ the most in our opinions. 

1. There was a massive cover-up involving manipulations with evidence, suppressing some testimonies and advising people what to say and what not to say. This cover-up was government-led and it continues until today. There is no way that any US president would ever reveal the most secret information pertaining to this case. A very large number of documents have been released but not the most important ones. We may never see those documents which would shed light on the case (e.g., Oswald's tax records, destroyed SS documents). In contrast, you believe that there was no cover-up, and it is only the conspiracy theorist's mind which craves for data which do not exist.

2. We attribute different weights to Hosty's and Fritz'/Bookhout's testimonies. This most recent finding (Hosty's notes) is a breakthrough because it brought to daylight a recording from the very first interrogation before any cover-up could kick in. Hosty's notes were made as Oswald spoke. The validity of these notes is incomparable to the validity of e.g., Fritz's notes which I gather were drafted maybe years after the interrogation using Bookhout's notes as the template. As cover-up was in place already on the evening of November 22 ("the case is cinched"), any post-hoc elaborated notes would contain references to incriminating information which Oswald never said. Hosty does not mention the 2nd-floor encounter and as his notes were authentic (similar to a stenographic record), it is for this reason that the scenario without the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter is the more likely version of events. You instead do not have any doubts about the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter.

3. We also differ in interpreting "in" and "out" in the context of Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting. Those believing in the veracity of Hosty's notes say that Oswald had lunch in the first-floor lunchroom when shots rang out. (I would say when the first shot rang out). Thus it is possible to say he was in the building during the shooting, and that he did not watch the motorcade. Oswald moved to the front and got to the doorway just seconds after the last shot and we see him at the western wall as Prayer Man. So, he saw a tail of the motorcade (in a way he saw part of a parade) and he surely saw the excitement. He surely was in the vicinity of Mr. Shelley just seconds after the shooting. In contrast, you believe that Oswald was shooting at the President during this critical period and that he was buying another Coke when Baker entered the lunchroom. 

It is impossible to resolve these differences at this stage. I hope more new data will pop up and that Darnell and Wiegman films will be eventually given to the public as Z-film was. 

 

 

Somehow I find a difference between your posts and those of John Butler !

😁

You're talking sense. OK. Well, I'll tell you something : if "prayer man" is indeed Lee Harvey Oswald, then the Warren Commission, myself, Vincent Bugliosi, David Von Pein, Gerald Posner, John McAdams and others are completely wrong. Granted.
But you see, it's not only a question of "François believes Marrion Baker who says that LHO was on the 2nd floor" and "Andrej believes the Hosty's note that shows that Oswald was outside watching the presidential parade".

It's a lot more than that. As I have constantly said, the Marrion Baker / Roy Truly story fits the rest of the overwhelming evidence perfectly. And I mean, the whole body of evidence and events (a whole mountain). It fits Oswald's actions afterwards (among them, the murder of officer Tippit).

Oswald being "prayer man" fits nothing and goes against all the rest. 

You would have a lot more to prove and to discover after that. A whole mountain.

That's a good sign that I am right.

What about Tippit's murder ? What about Oswald's claim that he was bringing curtain rods ? What about Oswald's rifle ? What about everything else ? Why did Oswald NEVER said anything about being outside to the press or to his brother or wife ?

Sooner or later, you'll have to think about that.

In all honesty, I am not shaken the least bit by the Hosty's note.

Anyway, I have said all that I have to say. All I can do now is wait. Wait until something new comes up, as you say. Wait until new documents are found. Wait until better-quality films and pictures are produced.

And I am saying this in earnest : good luck to you !

As I said this morning, if somebody is able to prove in the future that "prayer man" is Lee Oswald, then I'll eat my whole book live on line, naked in a thunderstorm.

What will you do ? What will James DiEugenio do ? I'm not asking much : I'm only asking that if it turns out that I was right all along and you were wrong, you acknowlege that fact right here, on this forum.

Deal ?

[John Butler]

Numpty,

"Somehow I find a difference between your posts and those of John Butler ! "

Shouldn't have sent a guy a message saying he has zero intelligence.  It will come back to you.  There is supposed to be a difference and will continue to be.

[François Carlier]

1 minute ago, John Butler said:

Numpty,

"Somehow I find a difference between your posts and those of John Butler ! "

Shouldn't have sent a guy a message saying he has zero intelligence.  It will come back to you.  There is supposed to be a difference and will continue to be.

When you have something interesting to say, let us know !

[John Butler]

Numpty,

Why should I let you know anything or even speak?  With your closed mind it would be the same as going out and talking to the trees or wind.  Discussing anything with people like you is a useless endeavor.  So, don't expect any further replies.

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by John Butler

[Andrej Stancak]

28 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

What will you do ? What will James DiEugenio do ? I'm not asking much : I'm only asking that if it turns out that I was right all along and you were wrong, you acknowlege that fact right here, on this forum.

I will ask some distinguished people whom the community respects very much to advise. If Jim would be keen to help or even write to the Sixth Floor, I would support it. I myself will not write anything as a request because it could be easily turned down and it would be a precedent. (I have to say that the Sixth Floor Museum was unusually supportive when I approached them 3-4 times with my requests). I am not familiar with US laws to know how and what can be asked.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Andrej Stancak

[James DiEugenio]

I said this already.

A friend of mine asked Frazier this question about three years ago.

He said that he could not answer due to the poor quality of the photo.

Take that for what you think its worth.

[James DiEugenio]

Now, since I showed FC that Calloway is not the witness he makes him out to be, let me deal with what he discounts: the radio log messages.

Here are the questions they pose, which FC wants to ignore.

First, why did it take three passes to get anything like a complete account of the messages?

Why did the officers listening to the messages fail to find the one directing Tippit to Oak Cliff even though they had two weeks to do so?

If both Nelson and Tippit were directed to Oak Cliff on one message, why did Nelson go to Dealey Plaza instead?

Murray Jackson, in a private interview, later said that he sent Tippit and Nelson there because  because there was a drainage of officers from the area.  But 1.) There was an officer there already, Mentzel, and 2.) There was no crime in process reported there at the time, 3.) There was no direct acknowledgement of the order, you know like "Copy".

Why did the WC never interview Nelson in order to ask him why he apparently disobeyed the order to go to Oak Cliff?

Why did the WC never interview Jackson to explain why he sent them to Oak Cliff?

 

 

So please FC do not claim that somehow the Tippit case shows that Oswald shot Kennedy because he shot Tippit.

Something was askew here and that is why the WC did not investigate it.  For fear of what they would discover.

As attorney Allard Lowenstein said about the RFK case: In my experience, people with nothing to hide don't hide things.

Edited February 16, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Andrej Stancak]

26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

He said that he could not answer due to the poor quality of the photo.

I agree that the photo is a bit blurred and does not provide all details as we would wish to see, and Mr. Frazier could use this to say what he has said. I also remember that someone else asked the same question and Mr. Frazier responded that he was not even aware that someone would stand there.

Autobiographical memories can be activated by prompts, such as odors or pictures. I would be keen to show Mr. Frazier the 3D model of the doorway and ask him to comment on any figure there, not explicitly about Prayer Man. Maybe he would recall who this person and other people in the doorway were when the whole scene would be revived in front of him.

Would your friend be willing to show Mr. Frazier some model images and record what he has to say?

Edited February 16, 2019 by Andrej Stancak

[James DiEugenio]

He did that at the AARC Conference.

 

He lives in Illinois.