David Von Pein Posted July 5, 2022 Author Share Posted July 5, 2022 (edited) Quote DVP said: I think every reasonable person knows, deep down, that the [Darnell] film cannot possibly show Lee Oswald. Because if it did show Oswald, I'd have at least one or two news videos in my collection which include Oswald shouting to the world, "I was on the steps!" Can there be any doubt at all that what I just said is absolutely true and makes total sense? 12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: Well, he could have been holding back on stuff like that until he got a lawyer. But, yeah, I agree, it seems probable he would have said something like "I am just a Patsy! I was standing outside watching the parade!" That he did not suggests he was inside the building. He told the world he was inside the building "at the time" of the shooting, Pat. Edited July 5, 2022 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 32 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: He told the world he was inside the building "at the time" of the shooting, Pat. He was, Dave. Depends on what you call inside the building. Is being at the the top of the steps considered to be inside the building?Or do you consider, that he was outside the building? Was he looking OUT of the building from the top of the steps or not? Semantics is such great fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 36 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: He told the world he was inside the building "at the time" of the shooting, Pat. Well that was not really a firm admission there. It could be interpreted that he was in the building but really more needed to be asked and answered to be clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 5, 2022 Author Share Posted July 5, 2022 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said: Depends on what you call inside the building. Is being at the the top of the steps considered to be inside the building? Or do you consider that he was outside the building? No reasonable person could possibly claim that anyone who was standing on these steps was located "inside" the building. These steps are OUTSIDE the building entirely---in the open air---and OUTSIDE the front door. These steps are NOT "inside" the Book Depository Building. No way, no how. .... Edited July 5, 2022 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 3 hours ago, Pat Speer said: I don't know if you know this, Tom, but a first generation copy of the Darnell film was made available to certain researchers 3-4 years ago. They've told me that if I saw this I would be won over to their cause. But it's in the hands of a private collector, and he's hoping to make some moola off his film. If I'm not mistaken, moreover, Oliver Stone is one of those who've been shown the film. Now, do you think that this film--if it really shows Oswald-- would still be in private hands? Wouldn't those with the money means and opportunity have found a way to get this film released, or at least be clamoring to raise money for its release? I'd bet the farm it remains unseen because it doesn't actually show Oswald. There's a fundamental flaw in Pat's story. The private collector is trying to make a fortune on the film clip. So he shows a bit of it to convince potential buyers that it's worth a fortune. Pat bet's his farm that the film does NOT show Oswald. Well if it doesn't show Oswald, then why does the collector think the film is worth a fortune? And why would the researcher who saw the film tell Pat that he'd be won over to the cause if he saw it? The only possible answers to this conundrum that I can think of are: The private collector doesn't know what Oswald looks like. The researcher who says Pat would be won over is telling a lie. And Pat is still a farmer. Or, ... Pat loses the farm, but the rich guys decide the price of the film is too high because, while the man in the film looks like Oswald, he can't be proven to be Oswald. Oh wait... technically speaking, Pat gets to keep the farm because the guy cannot be proven to be Oswald. I'm going with #2 above because I'm pretty sure the private collector would know whether or not the guy in the film looks just like Oswald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Cummings Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 5 hours ago, David Von Pein said: He also asked for legal representation which he never received while in jail. He told the world he was inside the building "at the time" of the shooting, Pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: There's a fundamental flaw in Pat's story. The private collector is trying to make a fortune on the film clip. So he shows a bit of it to convince potential buyers that it's worth a fortune. Pat bet's his farm that the film does NOT show Oswald. Well if it doesn't show Oswald, then why does the collector think the film is worth a fortune? And why would the researcher who saw the film tell Pat that he'd be won over to the cause if he saw it? The only possible answers to this conundrum that I can think of are: The private collector doesn't know what Oswald looks like. The researcher who says Pat would be won over is telling a lie. And Pat is still a farmer. Or, ... Pat loses the farm, but the rich guys decide the price of the film is too high because, while the man in the film looks like Oswald, he can't be proven to be Oswald. Oh wait... technically speaking, Pat gets to keep the farm because the guy cannot be proven to be Oswald. I'm going with #2 above because I'm pretty sure the private collector would know whether or not the guy in the film looks just like Oswald. There's no flaw in the theory. I just overstated my conclusion. I should have said that I'd bet the farm that the film does not conclusively show Oswald. As stated, those already believing "Prayer Man" was Oswald have viewed the film and said it is clear and shows Oswald. So why haven't they started a go-fund-me to raise money to get the film "released"? And why hasn't one of them with access to a million jumped up and said "I'll do it!"? And put out the film on a DVD or something... I feel certain that they know--deep down inside--that the image just isn't clear enough to prove that it's Oswald, and that maybe just maybe it will hurt their cause because some of those convinced it is Oswald will lose their faith once they see a clearer image that doesn't look like Oswald. Not really... It is sad, but true, that a lot of CTs are addicted to drama, and will always choose a solution that makes them distrust the guv'ment or CIA, than something that actually makes sense. I have witnessed this firsthand on this forum, and at conventions, etc, where people still cling to bits like Oswald's being Lovelady, or an assassin firing from the sewer, or Hickey accidentally killing Kennedy, or Greer deliberately killing Kennedy. I could go on and on but I don't want to sidetrack the thread... People develop emotional relationships with their theories...of all kinds. Whether it be that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, or JFK was killed by crazy kid Oswald, or Biden stole the election.... I have a good friend--a smart guy--who tells me he still believes in his guts that Barack Obama was actually born in Africa, and that his birth certificate was a fake. I once asked James Jenkins how it was that so many people think he said the back of the head was blown out when he had repeatedly told them it was intact, but shattered beneath the scalp. And he told me with a world-weary voice... "People will believe what they want to believe." He then put out a book in which he moved the wound he said was on top of the head to the back of the head... And received tons of praise for sticking to his story, and telling the truth, when he'd really changed his story to appease those who wanted to believe. Edited July 5, 2022 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 13 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: So why haven't they started a go-fund-me to raise money to get the film "released"? Most big donors would probably want to see the film clip themselves before donating. 13 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: I feel certain that they know--deep down inside--that the image just isn't clear enough to prove that it's Oswald, and that maybe just maybe it will hurt their cause because some of those convinced it is Oswald will lose their faith once they see a clearer image that doesn't look like Oswald. Not really... Maybe. But then why does the owner of the film expect to be paid so much? Perhaps he's asking a price that is unreasonably high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Most big donors would probably want to see the film clip themselves before donating. Maybe. But then why does the owner of the film expect to be paid so much? Perhaps he's asking a price that is unreasonably high. My understanding is that he wanted a million, which is unreasonably high if the image is inconclusive, but not if it clearly shows Oswald...to a 99% certainly, as I was told. As stated, I think those claiming it shows him to a 99% certainty know that to others it would be more like 50/50, or less... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 9 hours ago, Pat Speer said: I don't know if you know this, Tom, but a first generation copy of the Darnell film was made available to certain researchers 3-4 years ago. They've told me that if I saw this I would be won over to their cause. But it's in the hands of a private collector, and he's hoping to make some moola off his film. If I'm not mistaken, moreover, Oliver Stone is one of those who've been shown the film. Now, do you think that this film--if it really shows Oswald-- would still be in private hands? Wouldn't those with the money means and opportunity have found a way to get this film released, or at least be clamoring to raise money for its release? I'd bet the farm it remains unseen because it doesn't actually show Oswald. The story I heard Pat was that that copy of the Darnell film was not really any better than what’s currently available, and that the guy wanted an exorbitant amount of money for it. There are frames from that copy on Bart Kamp’s website (the exiting cam car frames and the one with the arrow that says Sarah Stanton) which seem to corroborate that. http://www.prayer-man.com/camera/james-glen-darnell/ It’s hard for me to believe that it would be suppressed just to prolong the inevitable if it was really good enough for an identification, and that someone like Bart would continue a massive effort and time commitment of writing multiple book length essays putting together an alternate theory of Oswald’s alibi for exactly zero dollars while knowing for a fact that the central thesis is incorrect. His theory is not actually dependent on Oswald being PM, but still, most people wouldn’t spend hundreds of hours doing that sort of thing. I have my own opinions about Oswald’s alibi, don’t subscribe to any particular theory, and try to take a probabilistic approach to this kind of thing. All I’ve been saying is that everyone should support the effort to end the debate for good, and that it’s something that’s definitely achievable. I think that’s a pretty reasonable position to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 Let's take a closer look at DVP's claim, made repeatedly, that Oswald not shouting to reporters in the hallway that he was on the steps when JFK was murdered proves he wasn't there. DVP's supporting tape begins with Oswald asking for a a lawyer to represent him. Which he was entitled to but had been illegally denied by the cops. Suppose he had been allowed one. The first thing a lawyer would have told him is, keep your mouth shut on matters of substance. I'll handle the questions. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. I know enough about Oswald to know he already understood this point, which was one reason he was asking for a lawyer in the first place. In short, Oswald's response to the questions in the hallway was entirely rational at that time (about 6 hours or so after he was picked up and after several hours of questioning). Shouting out his alibi to a bunch of reporters as he was dragged thru the hallway would have been the wrong thing to do. By that time he probably sensed, if only vaguely, that he was in trouble was going to need a defense. He never got that lawyer and would be dead about 27 or so hours later, taking anything he knew with him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 DVP said: "And who does own them now? Wiegman's is an NBC-TV film. Does NBC own it now? (I would guess that they do.) And Darnell was a WBAP-TV reporter/cameraman, right? So is his original film in the hands of KXAS-TV (formerly WBAP) in Fort Worth? Or did the Sixth Floor Museum snatch up some rights to those films (which they have done with other TV footage)?" Kudos to DVP for advocating access to the Darnell and Wegman films. They are important JFKA records--an assertion Greg Parker got nowhere with when a few years ago he asked the National Archives to take possession of the film originals. As to the current ownership/possession: I think the original of the Darnell film was transferred to NBC in New York years ago. But that doesn't change the fact that the local Dallas NBC affiliate (called WBAP at the time) owns the film shot by its employee, Jimmy Darnell. It is responsible under its FCC license for its use, as news, in the public interest. The film has clearly emerged as news per the PM debate (even DVP wants to see it!). Denying access to the original would seem to violate its license. NBC is just a network of stations, that over the last 20 years has morphed into a small cog in a multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate known as NBC Universal. That in turn was owned first by GE and now by Comcast and includes a myriad of domestic and international properties. It is executives at Comcast who now make decisions about what its subsidiaries do. I suggest any petition needs to be directed at Comcast, and to the local Dallas affiliate under its FCC license. The 6th floor museum has a first generation copy of Darnell (whatever that means for our purposes). As far as I can tell the museum is reluctant to let it be seen because it lacks ownership. Bart would know more about that. Oliver Stone and Jim DiEugenio are indeed key figures in any attempt to get the films. In his docs, Stone does an exemplary job in establishing Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the murder. Briefly, Dorothy Garner, the supervisor of the women watching out of the 4th floor window, stayed behind on the landing, while 2 other women went down the stairs immediately after the shooting. She was still there when Truly came up the stairs with a cop. No Oswald. No 2nd floor lunch room encounter, fabricated after Oswald was murdered to lend credence to the WC story. Stone has done a terrific job drawing attention to the JFKA. But when Joe Rogan asked him if Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor where was he, Stone dropped the ball. On the second floor having lunch he said, where he was spotted by Baker the cop. That needs to be rectified. In doing so, Stone can draw attention to the coverup, not by the government this time but a "news" organization. It's right up his alley. Stone is one of the world's top experts in media perfidy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 2 hours ago, Tom Gram said: The story I heard Pat was that that copy of the Darnell film was not really any better than what’s currently available, and that the guy wanted an exorbitant amount of money for it. I've studied the Darnell film extensively, not for the purpose identifying Prayer Man, but rather to see if Lovelady and Shelley told the truth in their WC testimony (they didn't) as part of my effort to (independently) debunk the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter. I just looked at the frame from the new Darnell film that Bart got in December 2021. (Thanks Pat for bringing this to my attention and Tom for linking to it.) It definitely looks like a higher resolution copy. (Yay!) Problem is, when you zoom way in, the compression artifacts interfere too much with the image details. (Boo!) Hopefully Bart has a better copy and was the one who compressed that image. There ARE some things that I can see in this copy of Darnell that I couldn't in the other. For example I can see that Prayer Man is not holding a coke bottle as some have said. I still think he's holding a camera with both hands. Hey Tom, this can't be the million dollar film can it? I mean, why would Bart have it if he didn't pay for it? And why would Bart say it shows that Prayer Man is 99% certain to be Oswald? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I've studied the Darnell film extensively, not for the purpose identifying Prayer Man, but rather to see if Lovelady and Shelley told the truth in their WC testimony (they didn't) as part of my effort to (independently) debunk the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter. I just looked at the frame from the new Darnell film that Bart got in December 2021. (Thanks Pat for bringing this to my attention and Tom for linking to it.) It definitely looks like a higher resolution copy. (Yay!) Problem is, when you zoom way in, the compression artifacts interfere too much with the image details. (Boo!) Hopefully Bart has a better copy and was the one who compressed that image. There ARE some things that I can see in this copy of Darnell that I couldn't in the other. For example I can see that Prayer Man is not holding a coke bottle as some have said. I still think he's holding a camera with both hands. Hey Tom, this can't be the million dollar film can it? I mean, why would Bart have it if he didn't pay for it? And why would Bart say it shows that Prayer Man is 99% certain to be Oswald? I know nothing about this other than what I've read on the internet, so I'm not exactly the most reliable source here. Bart replied to Pat's allegation the last time this came up, and I'm just repeating what I remember. The gist of it was that the film wasn't very good, but was clearer in certain areas; and that he got a digital scan but not the original cause the guy was a douche and wanted way too much money for a mediocre film. According to Bart's website: Quote in Dec 2021 I got hold of a different copy of the Darnell film, in many cases this was worse quality than what was already available, but the exposure highlighted better sight of some of the older frames. Additionally there was some extra footage that showed that Jimmy Darnell had his finger on the trigger when he made his way to get out of camera car 3 to run down Elm on the left. This footage I have not seen before. First of all he was in the centre of the backseat, while filming he moves past behind Malcolm Couch on his left. See the sequence of frames directly below...But the best is to come by showing a clearer version of Sarah Stanton standing on the steps only 4-5 ft from Buell Wesley Frazier exactly where she said she was. Her white-ish hair sticking a mile out from anyone else. I don't have any other information, but it seems like a stretch to me that anyone would deliberately conceal the film just because it doesn't support PM being Oswald. If it isn't Oswald, so what? A better version of the films will become available eventually; so would it really be worth it to string people along and put your integrity on the line just to promote a theory you know will inevitably be proven wrong? It all seems a bit too duplicitous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted July 5, 2022 Share Posted July 5, 2022 17 minutes ago, Tom Gram said: I don't have any other information, but it seems like a stretch to me that anyone would deliberately conceal the film just because it doesn't support PM being Oswald. If it isn't Oswald, so what? A better version of the films will become available eventually; so would it really be worth it to string people along and put your integrity on the line just to promote a theory you know will inevitably be proven wrong? It all seems a bit too duplicitous. I think you are right, Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now