Prayer Man

[Ron Bulman]

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

As stated previously, a preponderance of research still leads me pondering.

Yes.

[David Josephs]

9 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

If Lee was PM, he had a golden opportunity to say he was outside during the shooting.

Far be it for the FBI or DPD to embellish an unrecorded interrogation so that Oswald is out front with SHELLEY (ALSO NOT REALLY POSSIBLE) well after the fact rather than from the beginning...  We know the 2nd floor encounter did not happen yet the FBI and DPD< ALONG WITH THOSE "helping" are there to make sure there is plenty of doubt.

If not Oswald... who?  Do you believe the person REID is describing with only a white T-shirt and trousers is the same person as the man who came to work that morning with Frazier who says he was wearing a grey jacket like the one found by WESTBROOK in the parking lot... or the man CRAIG describes wearing the "same type of shirt" as CE150.

We also know from the reports he went to Beckley and changed out of the briarloom button-down shirt and his work pants.

I think it VERY plausible that PM is Harvey with the man in the TSBD being Lee...  Not long after the shooting CRAIG sees this man coming down from the TSBD direction...  I find this to be Harvey getting into the Rambler (No I don't think he was ever on a bus) The T-shirted Lee simply walks off, most likely North up Houston... but I speculate.

Nothing ironclad.. but where my thinking is... DJ

Mr. BELIN - I hand you Exhibit No. 150. Have you ever seen a shirt like this before? Does this look familiar to the shirt that the suspect might have been wearing when you saw him, or this man running toward the station wagon?
Mr. CRAIG - It's the same type of shirt.
Mr. BELIN - I believe you used the phrase, "light shirt". Would Exhibit 150 be darker than the shirt he was wearing?
Mr. CRAIG - Uh--it looks darker in here--yes, uh-huh.

CE150:   I know many are not H&L fans, yet a lookalike also roaming around Dealey only makes it that much confusing since identifications are correct, just conflicting with no overt explanation.

 

Mr. BELIN. Did you know his name on the day you saw him?
Mrs. REID. No; I did not. When I saw his picture I still didn't know his name until they told us who it was.
Mr. BELIN. How did you know the person you saw was Lee Harvey Oswald on the second floor?
Mrs. REID. Because it looked just like him.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the picture with the name Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. REID. Oh, yes.
Mr. BELIN. But you had seen him in the building?
Mrs. REID. Other than that day, sure.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit, first 157 and then 158, and I will ask you if either or both look like they might have been the trousers that you saw him wear or can you tell?
Mrs. REID. I just couldn't be positive about that. I would rather not say, because I just cannot.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on.

I had thought maybe PM was Lloyd Viles based on what Shelley had said, but yet again Shelley fibs

Mr. BALL - Why did you go to the front?
Mr. SHELLEY - Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
Mr. BALL - And who was out there?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she's with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
Mr. BALL - You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY - yes.

 One has to wonder why SHELLEY is so eager to confirm BAKER/TRULY when those actually on the steps and landing do not corroborate...

 

Mr. SHELLEY - We walked down the middle of the little street.
Mr. BALL - The dead-end street?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Truly, Mr. Truly and an officer go into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yeah, we saw them right at the front of the building while we were on the island.

 

In the image below, there is BAKER in helmet to right of signal.. We are looking for a skinny man in a suit and a man in a "checkered" shirt...  Given that he says they are already on the small island when BAKER runs by and into the TSBD (also a minor fib) it is impossible SANDY/ANDREJ for Lovelady to still be the man on the left side of the steps as people walk up unless yet again SHELLEY is lying about his movements as is Frazier and Molina (who I firmly believe is suitman behind Lovelady and not SHELLEY.

Mr. BALL. Did you see Mr. Truly go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where were you when you saw him go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I was right in the entrance.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a police officer with him?
Mr. MOLINA. I didn't see a police officer. I don't recall seeing a police officer but I did see him go inside.

Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
Mr. BALL - A police officer.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes,

 

Can anyone point out SHELLEY and LOVELADY... and please don't offer those 2 walking men as the 2 men I refer to here...  it obviously was not those 2 men in that clip. at least from what I've seen and analyzed.  At this point, in this image, we are expected to accept SHELLEY/LOVELADY are still on the steps?  I believe there is simply too much contradictory evidence for that to be true.

 

[John Butler]

18 hours ago, David Josephs said:

John,  I know I for one have explained this to you a number of times.

The image you offer is not a photograph but a frame from a moving picture camera which is also panning and moving at the same time.

If you truly wish to use that Towner frame to argue either Towner or Altgens was altered you are once again using the poorest quality source material you can find.

When a camera pans like that everything not the focus of the panning will be blurry (how we can tell certain Z-frames are altered)

The WHITE TAN BLACK BLOBS and a terrible re-colorization with filters of that area still makes it difficult to see anyone there

 

And below, we have Hughes with the white shirted Lovelady in plain sight, the same frame you offered is bottom right where once again the blurred appearance of people in the doorway is obvious.

The alteration to TOWNER is a very complicated process and is not designed to remove people from the stairway... it is designed to sync with Zapruder, which it does not.

I still suggest you take a bit more time and brush up on how light and cameras work along with the sizes of the frames and the sizes of these images in the frames..  Detail stinks on a macro level and yet you want to arrive at micro conclusions using the same images?

John, show us in Towner/Zap/Nix/Bond what Truly describes... and then look at Position A.  Towner was altered, but having nothing to do with the TSBD doorway.  (I show in a different thread how the limo was made to move independently of the background in Towner..  look it up, pretty amazing really.

DJ

Mr. BELIN. The street leading to the expressway, that diagonal street?
Mr. TRULY. That is right.
And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.
If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.

I stand by what I posted.  Some of your images and descriptions I find unconvincing.  A number of conclusions are not too different from what I posted. 

"you are once again using the poorest quality source material you can find."

As far as my image of Doorway man crop, it is not the poorest image found.  It is from this very clear Altgens 6 photo.  This image is less than the one I used.  A reduction of 3 times its original size.  It is reduced to meet forum standards on size:

The crop you say is the poorest image is better than yours.

 

Your image has been altered further from the original Altgens 6 photo.  Note the shoulder and sleeve.  Your image is altered by giving Doorway Man an extra shoulder that cuts across the suited man behind him in covering his suit coat.  That's not what is seen in my crop showing Doorway Man from a very clear Altgens 6 photo.

Here, I feel that your image is better for seeing all the splices in the Towner photo/frame.  But, the image I provided is taken directly from the Towner film and is of better quality.  

You show many splices in your photo/frame.  However, the Dallas Police are still there.  The Towner film frame contains an anachronism.  It also shows white hatted Dallas Police that were not there at the time of the assassination.  They are the anachronism.  They should not be there when the p. limo passes by.

In the Hughes film compare, you cannot tell whether that is Lovelady, or an Oswald being portrayed as Lovelady.  It will not successfully blow up for a comparison.

 

Been there done that and not gotten an answer to whether that is an Oswald or a Lovelady.  

12 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

I think that's Harvey Oswald.. IMHO.

 

Actually David Josephs said and not Chris.

Could be Harvey or could be Lee?  Which one in the doorway?  There is too much WC material to objectively rule out the bus/cab ride for an Oswald.  Two Oswalds at the TSBD and it is hard to figure who went which way.  

If I had to make a choice, I would go with Lee entering the Nash on Elm Street seen by Roger Craig.

A question for you:  Which of the two, Harvey or Lee was the camera buff with all the cameras?     

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

had thought maybe PM was Lloyd Viles based on what Shelley had said, but yet again Shelley fibs

Mr. BALL - Why did you go to the front?
Mr. SHELLEY - Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
Mr. BALL - And who was out there?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she's with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
Mr. BALL - You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY - yes.

This is from Elsie Dorman showing Vimes and the two ladies.  They were on the SW corner when the assassination occurred.  This Dorman frame is just a few seconds from the p. limo entering the intersection of Houston and Elm.  They must have crossed over to Elm when the motorcade was halted on Houston St.

One can easily see Lloyd Vimes as the man behind Doorway Man.  That is like the "two" Algens in the Zap film.

Edited August 11, 2022 by John Butler

[David Josephs]

1 minute ago, John Butler said:

A question for you:  Which of the two, Harvey or Lee was the camera buff with all the cameras?     

Not going to let this devolve into an H&L discussion... that wasn't my point as there where a number of people who looked like Oswald.. Of course Frazier being 6'4" removes him from involvement as a double. But we have no idea who REID or CRAIG or Whaley or Bledsoe or, or, or ...saw that day.

First off John - what, if anything do you know about LEE OSWALD after March 1959?  We know the Oswald arrested was very interested in photography...  not the point.

You see the image on the left as being superior in detail than on the right?

1 minute ago, John Butler said:

Can't even tell if that's Lovelady on the left..  but hey, we all gonna see what we see, right?  You want to claim there are alterations in every aspect of every image (like your movement of Jean and Mary) then so be it.  I'm not going to get into it with you.  I left the forum due to silly arguments and assertions like turning Lovelady into Oswald or moving Jean and Mary up to the top of Elm...  see what you like John....

Best of luck

DJ 

[John Butler]

9 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Can't even tell if that's Lovelady on the left..  but hey, we all gonna see what we see, right?  You want to claim there are alterations in every aspect of every image (like your movement of Jean and Mary) then so be it.  I'm not going to get into it with you.  I left the forum due to silly arguments and assertions like turning Lovelady into Oswald or moving Jean and Mary up to the top of Elm...  see what you like John....

Best of luck

DJ 

David,

I have no animus towards you.  Different people see different is true.  I too wish to avoid any more H & L posts.  But, you cannot deal with the TSBD without realizing there were two Oswalds there at the time of the assassination. 

The last thing I would want to do is start and argument over aspects of the TSBD, or continue on with H & L points.  That ended with Jim Hargroves quit the fight with some of the opponents of the theory.

Best wishes

JRB    

Edited August 11, 2022 by John Butler

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

But, you cannot deal with the TSBD without realizing there were two Oswalds there at the time of the assassination. 

The way to "deal with" it is to accept that there never were two Oswalds, and that the notion of two Oswalds running amok in Dealey Plaza is absolutely preposterous.

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

The way to "deal with" it is to accept that there never were two Oswalds, and that the notion of two Oswalds running amok in Dealey Plaza is absolutely preposterous.

Whatever you say JC...  a-holes and opinions, everybody's got one.  Now all you have to do is deal with the evidence, your opinion, like your other singularity, has little meaning here.  

[Jonathan Cohen]

53 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Now all you have to do is deal with the evidence

The "evidence" has been dealt with on this forum for more than a decade and this asinine theory has been authoritatively debunked here and elsewhere - so much so that even Jim Hargrove has taken his toys and run away.

[David Josephs]

12 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

The "evidence" has been dealt with on this forum for more than a decade and this asinine theory has been authoritatively debunked here and elsewhere - so much so that even Jim Hargrove has taken his toys and run away.

Telling us what you've heard thru the grapevine is not the same as presenting evidence which refutes the key data.

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know Jon...  so rather than actually read a book or dig into a situation you give us the lame "has been debunked here and elsewhere" with no links, no thought, no analysis.. just you spouting off another opinion based on what others have written...  cause y'know, doing your own work and presenting your own conclusions would require patience and some critical thinking.

I know what Tracey, Greg, and a handful of others SAY, but what they ultimately offer as persuasion falls woefully short in terms of supporting evidence...  "Why would they..."  "How can you believe..."   "here is an alternative which fits this one case but cannot address the hundreds of others...

Look up Allen Felde JC...  DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN BEING AN ARMCHAIR QB..  Here, I'll even get you started.

When done with him, try John Ely next...  then you come post something from your own thoughts which debunks the lives of 2 men in the marines becoming one...

You make this so easy Jon it's quite pathetic.  But please, if you have to lift a finger, burn a brain cell or read an article be careful.. wouldn't want to strain your little world with you pretending to be a grown-up who can think for himself, research for himself and come to conclusions all on his own...

"Authoritatively" - how would you know they were an authority if you don't know anything about the subject matter?

Luckily there is a BLOCK feature in this forum the allows us to turn off the volume of those with nothing more than an opinion and an a-hole to offer.

Hey, really great talking with you JC... poster child for uninformed consent...  just keep nodding, Tracey will pat you on the head shortly.

 

 

[Joseph McBride]

All Jonathan does on the forum is nay-say people.

It would be good if he posted research and insights

like other members. That would make his posts

worth reading.

Edited August 12, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Joseph McBride writes:

Quote

All Jonathan does on the forum is nay-say people.

I'm sure Jonathan can defend himself, but I'm just wondering what the problem is with 'nay-saying' people.

When people spout nonsense, it's reasonable to point out that they're spouting nonsense. If that's what constitutes nay-saying, then nay-saying is something we should all be doing.

If a lone-nut theory is nonsensical (see, for example, the currently active thread promoting the 'Hickey shot JFK by accident' theory), it's reasonable to nay-say that theory. If a conspiracy theory is nonsensical, that theory too deserves to be nay-said.

I would argue that far-fetched conspiracy theories are especially deserving of the nay-saying treatment. A theory that proposes an unrealistically complicated conspiracy is liable to diminish the credibility of non-lone-nut theories in general.

This is because far-fetched conspiracy theories provide ammunition for propagandists who claim that questioning the lone-nut interpretation is, for example, no different from denying that the moon landings happened. As we are constantly told, anything that is labelled a 'conspiracy theory' is by definition wrong, and anyone who promotes a 'conspiracy theory' is by definition crazy.

Of course, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory was in fact dreamt up partly by someone who was a moon-landings denier.

Of all the far-fetched theories that the JFK assassination has attracted, and there are plenty, the long-term double-doppelganger theory is particularly nay-say-worthy. Not only is it internally contradictory, but it has the unique distinction of having been disproved nearly two decades before the book describing the theory was published. The chronology set out in Armstrong's book (published in 2003) was fundamentally contradicted by the pathologists' report of Oswald's exhumation (published in 1984).

As Jonathan pointed out, every important aspect of the double-doppelganger theory has been debated numerous times here and elsewhere, and none of it stands up. It's obviously nonsense, and hardly anyone believes it any more. It is an ex-theory. It has ceased to be.

For anyone who isn't familiar with the 'Harvey and Lee' talking points, most of them are dealt with here (warning: lots of nay-saying ahead):

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-debunked

--

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about Prayer Man. You can find out more about this topic here:

http://www.prayer-man.com/

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/10/2022 at 7:25 PM, Chris Davidson said:

If Lee was PM, he had a golden opportunity to say he was outside during the shooting.

 

In his interrogation, Oswald DID say he was outside on the steps with Bill Shelley watching the P. Parade during the shooting.

That was his real alibi. Too uncomfortable for the authorities. So they covered that up and claimed he said he was inside on the first floor.

 

[Andrej Stancak]

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That was his real alibi. Too uncomfortable for the authorities. So they covered that up and claimed he said he was inside on the first floor.

Exactly. Lee did say he was out when the motorcade passed the building (or rather the tail of the motorcade) and this has been effectively sanitised by not taking any voice or stenographic recordings of the interrogation sessions. Hosty's note on watching P. parade is the one minor crack that was somehow overlooked by the law enforcement and the Warren Commission. It took some 56+ years to retrieve at least this one bit of information. 

A couple of obvious question that may have be pertinent:

Describe what you have seen when you were outside the building to watch the motorcade. Who was there with you ?- list all people you remember.

How exactly did you get from 1026 North Beckley to the Texas Theatre? Please show your route on the map. Did anyone see you?

There would be no lying if a trial would follow and Lee's alibi could have been verified.

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

In his interrogation, Oswald DID say he was outside on the steps with Bill Shelley watching the P. Parade during the shooting.

That was his real alibi. Too uncomfortable for the authorities. So they covered that up and claimed he said he was inside on the first floor.

 

Uhhh... Where did he say that? The draft discovered by Kamp does not say when he went outside to watch the P. Parade nor where he was during the shooting. It is an assumption that the P. Parade line was his alibi. But neither Hosty nor any of the other participants in the interview said that was his alibi. 

So...really...that's not much to go by. if a man was accused of killing Dr. Oz and years later someone found a draft of an FBI report on an interview with him that said "went to get Dr.", would it be proof of his guilt? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he said he'd went to get a Dr. Pepper...