Jump to content
The Education Forum

Then went outside to watch the P. parade


Guest Bart Kamp

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 515
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

57 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Why on Earth can't it be a "stranger"? In the CE1381/CD706 document, it appears that all (or most) of the employees only stated that they had seen no strangers IN the building that day. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of a stranger mixing in with some of the TSBD employees out on the front steps, which are located, of course, OUTSIDE the building.

So, yes, "Prayer Man" could very possibly be a "stranger" indeed.

And please don't start up the nonsense about the front steps and entrance area of the building really being INSIDE the building itself. Because that argument is too nonsensical to keep talking about.

Keep at it Von Pein

keep trying

keep making more Doylesque posts

keep subverting

keep derailing

keep denying

keep discussing anything but the evidence put forward

GO HOME!

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Another "Ochus Campbell" Addendum (FWIW)....

While I was browsing through the witness statements in CD706, I came across this March 19, 1964, statement provided by TSBD Vice President Ochus V. Campbell, and I noticed that it dovetails nicely with Campbell's 11/24/63 FBI interview, with respect to Campbell saying (in both documents) that he had never seen Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination. In his 3/19/64 statement specifically, Campbell said this:

"I have had occasion to view photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald and to the best of my recollection never saw him while he was employed by the Texas School Book Depository."

 

When was Oswald's employment terminated?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Why on Earth can't it be a "stranger"? In the CE1381/CD706 document, it appears that all (or most) of the employees only stated that they had seen no strangers IN the building that day. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of a stranger mixing in with some of the TSBD employees out on the front steps, which are located, of course, OUTSIDE the building.

So, yes, "Prayer Man" could very possibly be a "stranger" indeed.

And please don't start up the nonsense about the front steps and entrance area of the building really being INSIDE the building itself. Because that argument is too nonsensical to keep talking about.

That just won’t do David. We should never attempt to make PM irrelevant. He is someone and may be someone of potentially great relevance to the entire case, at least as far as the TSBD is concerned. Is he a potential suspect? Innocent bystander? Murderer? Thief? Employee? We should seek the truth in that regard.

PM could be a stranger but Murphy (and others) have masterfully eliminated that possibility for the most part in that legendary thread. We ought to research who it is. Sadly that first gen. copy of the film may exist but for some odd reason, it’s quite impossible for honest researchers to obtain....

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

PM could be a stranger but Murphy (and others) have masterfully eliminated that possibility for the most part in that legendary thread.

There is no possible way that Sean Murphy (or anyone else) could totally eliminate the POSSIBILITY of PM being a "stranger" instead of a "TSBD worker". Sean might THINK he's done the impossible there, but when reality sets in, the "stranger" angle will never be totally eliminated. How could it be? There were a lot of "strangers" on Elm Street that day (from a TSBD worker's POV). Far more strangers than TSBD workers, that's for sure. And yet Sean Murphy has (somehow) systematically eliminated from contention any possibility of one of those non-Depository "strangers" climbing to the top of the TSBD stairs and watching the motorcade from there???

Puh-lease!

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

There is no possible way that Sean Murphy (or anyone else) could totally eliminate the POSSIBILITY of PM being a "stranger" instead of a "TSBD worker". Sean might THINK he's done the impossible there, but when reality sets in, the "stranger" angle will never be totally eliminated. How could it be? There were a lot of "strangers" on Elm Street that day (from a TSBD worker's POV). Far more strangers than TSBD workers, that's for sure. And yet Sean Murphy has (somehow) systematically eliminated from contention any possibility of one of those non-Depository "strangers" climbing to the top of the TSBD stairs and watching the motorcade from there???

Puh-lease!

Hmm...I should say “narrows the focus”, “process of elimination”, etc. Murphy did a masterful job in that thread and dealt with popular arguments for and against PM being identified as LHO. This isn’t a “CT’er vs LN’er” argument. I don’t care for titles or labels. I just want the facts.

I suppose I meant that it is more possible (than it is not) that PM is not a stranger. It is “more plausible than its negation” that PM is an employee out on break like (mostly) everyone else on the stairs that day. It is more plausible than its negation that PM is LHO. Someone that close to the bldg. as if he’s grouped with other laborers and staff cannot and should not be ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

I suppose I meant that it is more possible (than it is not) that PM is not a stranger. It is “more plausible than its negation” that PM is an employee out on break like (mostly) everyone else on the stairs that day. It is more plausible than its negation that PM is LHO. Someone that close to the bldg. as if he’s grouped with other laborers and staff cannot and should not be ignored.

I can agree with your points here. You make sense. (Except for the part about it probably being LHO.)

But my previous point was ---- there's no way we can TOTALLY ELIMINATE the possibility of PM being a "stranger".

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2019 at 2:27 PM, Andrej Stancak said:

And what about Judy McCully who was "advised" by the FBI to report that she was outside the building while she was on the 4th floor?

What if the WC asked the FBI if everyone was accounted for on the steps. Did they need McCully to make up the numbers?

Edited by Tony Krome
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 2:31 AM, James DiEugenio said:

I am awaiting for an FC reply.

I posted this seven hours ago.

Oh I forgot, gay Paree.   Viva La France!

Mister DiEugenio.

It is very funny, in a way. You never reply to the logical comments that I write, but you expect me to reply to every single item of comment that you make. Well, never mind.


There are three possibilities :
- 1. Oswald fired the shots on Kennedy, he is the sole assassin, and in his flight, trying to flee Dallas, he was seen and caught by a police officer and he killed him. That makes sense !

- 2. Oswald is innocent, he has nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination. When he learned that the president had been shot, he just decided to go to see a movie to have a good time, so he left work without telling anybody and on his way there took his revolver and shot a police officer. That does not make any sense !
- 3. Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination. He was chosen by conspirators to be the scapegoat. He was framed. He realised it. So he fled the scene. He was scared. When apprehended by Tippit, he feared that it was all part of the plot so he killed the police officer. OK. That's farfetched, but why not ? The problem is : if he was framed by conspirators, how in the world did those conspirators let him on the loose, running around, watching the presidential parade on the steps of the TSBD ? That does not make sense either !

In other words, only the first proposition makes sense.

As I told you, several people saw Oswald on the scene of the Tippit murder. Callaway talked to him. I never said that Callaway saw him fire the shots. I know the sequence of events. David Von Pein gave a few reasonable comments about that on this thread.

As I explained in a long post earlier on this thread, all you do is ask questions which, most of the time, are truly irrelevant. Nelson and Jackson were never "silenced" . So if they wanted to volunteer information, why didn't they do that ? Nobody stopped them.

There was confusion, no doubt. Maybe disorganisation. Even unfortnate initiatives. But nothing sinister.

I say that nobody in their right mind can deny that Lee Oswald killed Officer Tippit. Hence, you'll have a hard time trying to show that Oswald didn't have anything to do with the shooting of President Kennedy.

Another note : I am seriously, genuinely surprised at you apparent joining of the "prayer man" group. You seem to follow the trend with enthousiasm. I'm surprised. I thought you were more careful in your positions. In all honesty, I am convinced beyond certainty that the "prayer man" theory is a dead-end, a big mistake, a soon-to-be-forgotten ludicrous theory, a totally erroneous supposition, a delusion. Nothing more.

Of course, when I issued my so-called "challenge", I know it was just silliness (the thunderstorm part was funny, though), but, very seriously, I am asking you, when all is said and done, and everybody admits that the "prayer man" theory has to be discarded as a big mistake, you'll come here to publicly acknowledge that you had been wrong and I had been right !

 

Edited by François Carlier
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, François Carlier said:

You mean standing up ? Come on ! Your item 7 is weak.

François:

my point 7 is both strong and interesting. Our posture, the way how we stand, how we position our feet arms, and how we tilt the head is hardwired in our brains. You may have seen the famous movie "Forrest Gump" with Tom Hanks. Forrest had a specific way how he tilted his head to one side, and his little son did the same. Posture is determined by motor programs in the oldest parts of the brain - basal ganglia and reticular formation (linked to the vestibular system) -  and individual aspects of posture will manifest especially when we are distracted. If a neurologist wants to provoke a reflex on a patient, the doctor may ask patient to make some simple arithmetic counting or connect the fingers of both hands and pull them forecefully apart (Jendrassik manouvre). That keeps the patient's conscious brain busy and the old motor reflex programs can be tested. Prayer Man clearly was thinking, pondering what to do next. He did not even watch what is going on at Tripple Underpass as the rest of doorway occupants did. It would be a lousy decision to watch the motorcade from that spot anyway, you would take that spot only of there would not be a better spot which would not obstruct view of another person, for instance when you come to the doorway too late and all good spots have been taken already. Thus, Prayer Man shows his natural stance.

I have analysed Darnell picture and Prayer Man' s stance for almost 4 years now, and posted during this time a number of pictures revealing similarity between Prayer Man's stance and Lee' stance. Please find here one of them. It has been made with the old mannequin which was not modelled according to realistic body proporions of Lee Harvey Oswald, however, I hope you can spot the similarities between the posture captured in the backyard ptotograph and the reconstructed Prayer Man's posture. In both, the left leg is bent and pushed forward, and the body weight rest on the right foot which is placed backward. The arm posture in both pictuers is unusually similar too.

backyard_pm.jpg?w=529&zoom=2

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note, after not replying to my specific arguments, FC tried to ridicule the PM crowd.  He got reprimanded for the sealioning.

Now he comes back here and again, he does not reply to my original questions.  Instead he gives me three alternatives to pick from.  None of which I buy into.  He thens says I only ask questions which are mostly irrelevant.  

Utterly and completely wrong.  The reason I posed those question is because they raise the most serious problems with the radio traffic.  If Nelson got the same message Tippit did about  Oak Cliff, then why did neither Tippit nor Nelson directly confirm that?  Again, if they got the same message why did Nelson end up in Dealey Plaza and Tippit in Oak Cliff?  And why was Nelson never interviewed and asked about this divergence? Third, why were they sent to Oak Cliff when there already was an officer in Oak Cliff, namely Mentzel.  And why was Jackson never asked about these inconsistencies?

These raise the most serious problems with the  DPD.  And also the reluctance of the WC to do a real investigation into the Tippit murder.  Check the index of the Warren Report.  Are Mentzel or Nelson in the index? Why not?  Are they not important witnesses in the Tippit case?  FC, you must agree that Murray Jackson is important?  I mean President Andrew Jackson is in the index, but Murray is not.

Now let me produce some evidence that you will also not find in the WR.  Where was TIppit from about 12:30 until he was killed?  What I am about to tell you you can find in my essay or in McBride's book.

1. Parked in a GLOCO station looking at a viaduct that connects up with Dealey Plaza.  Five witnesses saw him there.

2.  Pulling over a car, and running out to open the back door and look at the floor.

3.  Running into a record shop and using the phone and then leaving abruptly.

So In addition to never explaining the weird radio traffic which Nelson did not obey and which needlessly put TIppit in Oak Cliff when someone else was there, why did the WC never list these facts about the most crucial half hour of Tippit's life?  They would seem to most objective observers to be rather interesting.  Do they not suggest that TIppit was looking for someone leaving Dealey Plaza and when he could not find him, he went and made a phone call to receive redirected instructions?  And it was those instructions which led to his death?

This is not asking questions.  This is asserting evidence which you ignore.  Because they lead to a conclusion you do not like.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, François Carlier said:

- 1. Oswald fired the shots on Kennedy, he is the sole assassin, and in his flight, trying to flee Dallas, he was seen and caught by a police officer and he killed him. That makes sense !

It doesn't make sense because, among other reasons, Oswald didn't have a motive and Oswald didn't have an escape plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...