Prayer Man

[Pat Speer]

24 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Is there any evidence backing up the idea that Frazier's polygraph was suppressed for the reasons you suggest? Frazier was making his claims about the paper bag on the day of the assassination and they appeared in an FBI report the following day:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57698#relPageId=142

In this report it is said that despite his observations of the bag being two feet long, Frazier "paid little attention" to the size. Is there any reason to believe Frazier claimed differently in his polygraph?  

Linne Mae supposedly told the FBI the bag was 3 feet 6 inches on the 22nd. The two siblings immediately placed the bag in Oswald's hands; debate about the size of the bag at that point hardly seems like such a controversial issue that it would be the sole reason for the egregiously suspicious disappearance of Frazier's polygraph, IMO. 

As for Frazier changing his story in ways that support Oswald's innocence, could that not also be reflective of Frazier feeling guilty? Read that Garrison memo I posted - does that not seem like someone who knows he can't really tell the full truth and is seriously troubled by his burden? Suggesting Oswald's innocence in various statements may have been a way for Frazier to temporarily relieve some of that burden over the years. I know this is armchair psychology but I don't think it's any less believable than what you proposed. 

As for PM, IMO, the only thing that has been firmly established in the debate is that PM is not Sarah Stanton. There is enough clarity in the films to compare with pictures of Stanton, and it's just not even close. The protruding grey-blond poofy hair alone is enough, IMO, but her facial and body proportions seal the deal. Also, Frazier has been pretty clear in public statements that Stanton was standing to his left. That supposedly first-gen copy of the Darnell film you've mentioned also shows a figure on the east of the steps that matches Stanton's head/hair - and there is a frame grab of that film on Bart Kamp's website. I'm not sure that's a coincidence:

http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/sarah-stanton/

I think there's a chance PM is a random non-employee, and there is even a potential candidate IMHO, but I think the evidence placing Oswald on or near the steps is not insubstantial and there is a solid argument that no strangers were present - thus PM as Oswald cannot be ruled out without better scans. If it isn't Oswald, big deal, but that non-zero chance, however small, that the case could be immediately reopened is worth taking - so obtaining better copies of the Darnell and Weigman films should be top top priority for the 60th anniversary IMO. 

When the FBI found out about the polygraph, they interviewed members of the DPD about its results. They acknowledged at this time that during the polygraph they showed Frazier the paper bag supposedly discovered in the sniper's nest. And that he said it was both too large and of the wrong kind of paper to be the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. And that he passed the polygraph.The DPD was so shook up by this, moreover, that they told the FBI they thought Oswald had concealed the rifle within the bag found in the depository, but had transported it in a broken-down condition within a much smaller bag. That's right. They mused that he'd put it in one bag (the bag discovered in the SN), and then placed this bag in another (the bag observed by Frazier.) Of course, they had no idea at this time that the rifle could not be broken down to fit in a bag the size of the one described by Frazier. But this shows how seriously the DPD took Frazier's polygraph.

Well, this led me to believe that's why it disappeared. Keep in mind that at the time of the polygraph, the case was Fritz's case. Fritz and Wade's. They couldn't have a problematic polygraph laying around just waiting to be snatched up by a defense attorney, now could they? 

P.S. One should keep in mind, moreover, that the DPD filed no reports regarding Brennan's refusal to ID Oswald, and that a non-Oswald thumb print they claimed was on Box D disappeared from the record. I take from this that they were deliberately concealing evidence that ran counter to the Oswald-did-it conclusion. But, ah shucks, it could just be a coincidence. Right?

Edited August 13, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Roger Odisio]

More from Pat:

"Nope. Let's stick to the facts. Oswald himself never offered his being outside as an alibi."

Endlessly repeating this falsehood does not make it a fact

"Those who spoke to him said he'd denied being the shooter, and said he was in the Domino Room at the time. If they were gonna lie about his "alibi" does it not make sense that they would claim he'd said something that incriminated him--such as something that could easily be refuted?"

Who were "those who spoke to him"?  The cops?  Cite?  They're lying to you, Pat.  So you think the Domino Room was his alibi because that's what these people said, not what Hosty recorded him saying under questioning?

"Hmmm... IF Hosty really did mean to imply that Oswald claimed he was outside during the shooting, this would have been exactly the kind of lie the powers that be would tell to further implicate Oswald in the crime. He said he was outside. No one saw him outside. Case closed."

No one has been willing to say they saw him outside (what a surprise) and the case is *not* closed.  Claiming he was outside is not a lie.  The powers that be buried Hosty's note, indicating that they didn't and don't agree with you that it could be used to somehow implicate him.  Instead they made up a whole narrative about 2nd floor lunch room encounters and have never tried to claim what you do--that he wasn't outside at the approximate time of the murder.  Why do you suppose that is?

"Coincidence? I suspect so. Hosty doesn't specify that the line about the P. Parade was Oswald's alibi, and everything he said afterwards indicates that Oswald didn't claim that as his alibi."

Everything Hosty said and did afterwards must be viewed with extreme skepticism.  He was part of the coverup and framing.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

More from Pat:

"Nope. Let's stick to the facts. Oswald himself never offered his being outside as an alibi."

Endlessly repeating this falsehood does not make it a fact

"Those who spoke to him said he'd denied being the shooter, and said he was in the Domino Room at the time. If they were gonna lie about his "alibi" does it not make sense that they would claim he'd said something that incriminated him--such as something that could easily be refuted?"

Who were "those who spoke to him"?  The cops?  Cite?  They're lying to you, Pat.  So you think the Domino Room was his alibi because that's what these people said, not what Hosty recorded him saying under questioning?

"Hmmm... IF Hosty really did mean to imply that Oswald claimed he was outside during the shooting, this would have been exactly the kind of lie the powers that be would tell to further implicate Oswald in the crime. He said he was outside. No one saw him outside. Case closed."

No one has been willing to say they saw him outside (what a surprise) and the case is *not* closed.  Claiming he was outside is not a lie.  The powers that be buried Hosty's note, indicating that they didn't and don't agree with you that it could be used to somehow implicate him.  Instead they made up a whole narrative about 2nd floor lunch room encounters and have never tried to claim what you do--that he wasn't outside at the approximate time of the murder.  Why do you suppose that is?

"Coincidence? I suspect so. Hosty doesn't specify that the line about the P. Parade was Oswald's alibi, and everything he said afterwards indicates that Oswald didn't claim that as his alibi."

Everything Hosty said and did afterwards must be viewed with extreme skepticism.  He was part of the coverup and framing.

Wow. Let's break this down. 

1. Hosty never said that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting. He never said it, at least not on the record.  And no one who knew him ever came forward claiming he'd said it in private. 

2.  The note in which he said Oswald went outside to watch the P. Parade does not specify that this was Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shooting. This is an assumption made by those who want to believe that's what it says, but in fact it does not say it. The first researcher to uncover this note, Malcolm Blunt, moreover, failed to see it as significant. Malcolm Blunt is a cautious man.

3. IF in fact Hosty did mean to write that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting, we have little reason to believe it. Let's break this down as well...

a. The FBI's report was co-written by Hosty with Bookhout. The absence of this claim from this report would indicate then that Bookhout failed to back up Hosty's recollection.

b. None of the other attendees at the interview said Oswald claimed he was outside at the time of the shooting. 

c. Oswald himself, despite numerous opportunities, never said he was outside at the time of the shooting when speaking to the press, or speaking to his family. 

Points a-c, then, when taken in combination, would suggest that IF the line in Hosty's draft about Oswald being outside was meant to represent Oswald's alibi at the time of the shooting, that Hosty was simply mistaken.

Particularly in that...

d. As no witnesses said anything about Oswald being outside at the time of the shooting in the days following the shooting, Oswald's saying he was outside at the time of the shooting would have been highly damaging, and central to the case the DPD and FBI were building against Oswald.

Its absence from the reports on his interviews, then, can only be seen as an indication he never said such a thing...

 

And no, I'm not done...

The belief Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting, and that this was covered up, strongly suggests that Oswald's saying as much would have carried some weight with the public. This was a man who'd publicly declared his innocence, and said he was a "patsy". It's hard to see then that a report claiming he'd said he was outside at the time of the shooting would need to be covered up.

We know, moreover, that this possibility was explored by the first generation of critics. The Altgens photo, and Billy Lovelady's resemblance to Oswald, led to a full-court press of researchers into Dallas searching for someone, anyone, who would verify that Oswald was outside. It failed miserably, to such an extent even that Mark Lane, in an effort to bolster the credibility of the research community, publicly declared that it was not Oswald in the Altgens photo. We then jump forward 40 years or so. Now someone thinks they see Oswald in a different photo, and the arguments begin anew. But something is overlooked. The early researchers combed Dallas looking for witnesses to suggest a conspiracy. They found witnesses who were willing to state they saw smoke on the knoll. They found witnesses who'd stood in front of the depository, who'd thought the shots came from their right. They found witnesses who said someone who didn't look like Oswald had killed Tippit. But did they find one witness claiming Oswald was outside? No, not one. 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Tom Gram]

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Wow. Let's break this down. 

1. Hosty never said that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting. He never said it, at least not on the record.  And no one who knew him ever came forward claiming he'd said it in private. 

2.  The note in which he said Oswald went outside to watch the P. Parade does not specify that this was Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shooting. This is an assumption made by those who want to believe that's what it says, but in fact it does not say it. The first researcher to uncover this note, Malcolm Blunt, moreover, failed to see it as significant. Malcolm Blunt is a cautious man.

3. IF in fact Hosty did mean to write that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting, we have little reason to believe it. Let's break this down as well...

a. The FBI's report was co-written by Hosty with Bookhout. The absence of this claim from this report would indicate then that Bookhout failed to back up Hosty's recollection.

b. None of the other attendees at the interview said Oswald claimed he was outside at the time of the shooting. 

c. Oswald himself, despite numerous opportunities, never said he was outside at the time of the shooting when speaking to the press, or speaking to his family. 

Points a-c, then, when taken in combination, would suggest that IF the line in Hosty's draft about Oswald being outside was meant to represent Oswald's alibi at the time of the shooting, that Hosty was simply mistaken.

Particularly in that...

d. As no witnesses said anything about Oswald being outside at the time of the shooting in the days following the shooting, Oswald's saying he was outside at the time of the shooting would have been highly damaging, and central to the case the DPD and FBI were building against Oswald.

Its absence from the reports on his interviews, then, can only be seen as an indication he never said such a thing...

 

 

 

Pat, if the DPD and FBI (and the SS) were burying problematic evidence left and right like polygraphs, fingerprints, documents, etc. - and they most certainly were - is it really out of the question to think that they would leave certain things Oswald said out of their interrogation reports?  

That makes sense about the Frazier polygraph by the way, and I'd forgotten that Frazier was shown the actual bag - so I think you are probably right about that. I don't think it's impossible that Frazier's questioning revealed something even more sensitive that led to the polygraph being buried though, and/or coercion on the part of the DPD. Look at the polygraph of Sandra Serrano in the RFK case and imagine if a recording like that came out on Frazier; it'd be bad news bears for Fritz and Co. 

[Karl Hilliard]

On 8/4/2022 at 6:18 PM, David Von Pein said:

 David quoted Shelley's testimony---

Quote

Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot, when is the last time you saw Oswald?
Mr. SHELLEY. It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. SHELLEY. On the first floor over near the telephone.

 

 

Didn't other employees state that Oswald was upstairs before 12? That almost sounds like Shelley supplying an alibi for Oswald right there. As a lone assassin, Lee should have been hunkered down in the snipers nest at noon ready to shoot.

[Denis Morissette]

9 hours ago, Robbie Robertson said:

Remember when Tom O’Neil got the story about Vincent bugilosi and his cover ups, not only did he personally record Vince but he was suing Tom and Tom filed many FOIA requests with assault charges on Vince 

 

and another thing if you look up the supposed daughter and who Tom spoke with at the age of 5 or 6 talks about being picked up by bugilosi taken to a toy store and bought anything she wanted and dropped off in the driveway which the mom called the police on him. She came out after his death and she wasn’t even seeking money or political slander as they mentioned back in his elections in 72 

 

https://atwaatwar.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-vince-bugliosi-story-16-3-mb.pdf

How does this help with the JFK assassination case?

[Roger Odisio]

• 
   

Wow. Let's break this down. 

"1. Hosty never said that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting. He never said it, at least not on the record.  

Oswald told Hosty he went out to watch the P parade after eating his lunch.  There was a shooting as the motorcade, that Oswald said he went to see, it passed the TSBD.  The plain meaning of Oswald's statement is obvious.  You keep asserting Oswald could have meant some other time by his statement, but offer neither reasoned analysis nor any basis for your claim.   If Oswald wasn't out front at the time of the shooting when was he out there?

"And no one who knew him ever came forward claiming he'd said it in private."  

He said it the initial questioning as recorded by Hosty.  This is a diversion. 

2.  "The note in which he said Oswald went outside to watch the P. Parade does not specify that this was Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shooting. This is an assumption made by those who want to believe that's what it says, but in fact it does not say it."

I've lost track of the number of times you have said that Oswald saying he went out to watch the motorcade does not establish where he was when the shots rang out.  See above.

Let's see if I can clarify something. If nothing else, Oswald saying he "went outside to watch the P Parade" means he couldn't have been shooting Kennedy from the 6th floor doesn't it?  He wouldn't have shot Kennedy and then went outside to watch the parade that was already over, that he had just destroyed, would he? 

A couple of times you have flirted with the idea, and do so in this piece again, that Hosty was mistaken, that perhaps Oswald never said it.  But we know Hosty was at the questioning and wrote the passage.  You offer nothing but bald conjecture that perhaps Hosty was mistaken or somehow didn't actually write it.  More below.

You can dance around the topic where he was at the time of the killing all you want.  I, for one, don't know his exact position when the shots rang out.  Was he on the steps, or perhaps was he a few seconds late but there when Darnell swung his camera around?

Doesn't really matter does it?  If Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor pulling the trigger, there needs to be a reckoning as to who murdered Kennedy.    

"The first researcher to uncover this note, Malcolm Blunt, moreover, failed to see it as significant. Malcolm Blunt is a cautious man."

You're claiming the support of Malcolm Blunt for your conjecture?  Pretty outrageous. Have you seen the videos in which Kamp and Blunt discuss the material?  Has Blunt objected to Kamp's interpretation that the note was Oswald's alibi?  Did you ask Blunt before making your claim?

"3. IF in fact Hosty did mean to write that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting, we have little reason to believe it. Let's break this down as well...

a. The FBI's report was co-written by Hosty with Bookhout. The absence of this claim from this report would indicate then that Bookhout failed to back up Hosty's recollection."

No, it means that after Oswald was fingered and then murdered both recognized his alibi contradicts their narrative and they dropped it.

"b. None of the other attendees at the interview said Oswald claimed he was outside at the time of the shooting." 

C'mon, Pat, none of the "attendees" (you mean the cops) were going to  back Oswald's alibi.

"c. Oswald himself, despite numerous opportunities, never said he was outside at the time of the shooting when speaking to the press, or speaking to his family. "

You have no reliable way of knowing what he told his family.  As for not blurting out his alibi in the hallway, he was too savvy for that.  Had he been able to have a lawyer, which he had been asking for right from the moment of his arrest, you wouldn't be able to raise such a silly point.  The first thing a lawyer would have told him is to keep his mouth shut.  Besides, it was obvious that the hallway reporters were told he was the killer, and were out for teh story, for blood in other words.  When he blurted that he was just a patsy as he was being shoved into an elevator, did any of these guys look into his claim.  Of course not. 

"Points a-c, then, when taken in combination, would suggest that IF the line in Hosty's draft about Oswald being outside was meant to represent Oswald's alibi at the time of the shooting, that Hosty was simply mistaken."

None of the points stands on its own merits and together they show nothing of the sort.

"Particularly in that...

d. As no witnesses said anything about Oswald being outside at the time of the shooting in the days following the shooting, Oswald's saying he was outside at the time of the shooting would have been highly damaging, and central to the case the DPD and FBI were building against Oswald."

Oswald's alibi, if allowed to be offered in court, let's say, would have been highly damaging to him?  Did I read that right?  Wow.  I'm out of words.

"Its absence from the reports on his interviews, then, can only be seen as an indication he never said such a thing..."

Its absence from the reports on his interviews, then, can only be seen as an indication that those concocting a narrative to frame Oswald were not going to allow anything that contradicted their story to see the light of day, if they could help it.  There.  I fixed your sentence for you.

 

And no, I'm not done...

"The belief Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting, and that this was covered up, strongly suggests that Oswald's saying as much would have carried some weight with the public. This was a man who'd publicly declared his innocence, and said he was a "patsy". It's hard to see then that a report claiming he'd said he was outside at the time of the shooting would need to be covered up."

The opposite is true.  Oswald's alibi needed to be covered up and he had to be murdered so that the WC had free reign to invent their a story.  Including ridiculous yarns like the magic bullet and 2nd floor lunch room encounter.

"We know, moreover, that this possibility was explored by the first generation of critics. The Altgens photo, and Billy Lovelady's resemblance to Oswald, led to a full-court press of researchers into Dallas searching for someone, anyone, who would verify that Oswald was outside. It failed miserably, to such an extent even that Mark Lane, in an effort to bolster the credibility of the research community, publicly declared that it was not Oswald in the Altgens photo. We then jump forward 40 years or so. Now someone thinks they see Oswald in a different photo, and the arguments begin anew. But something is overlooked. The early researchers combed Dallas looking for witnesses to suggest a conspiracy. They found witnesses who were willing to state they saw smoke on the knoll. They found witnesses who'd stood in front of the depository, who'd thought the shots came from their right. They found witnesses who said someone who didn't look like Oswald had killed Tippit. But did they find one witness claiming Oswald was outside? No, not one. "

Not one witness.  Because If he was on the steps, Oswald was back in the corner behind everyone in front of him focused on first the motorcade, then the commotion once the shots were fired.

More than that, in your tale of the search for witnesses to back up Oswald, you show little or no understanding of either the atmosphere of intimidation at the time, or the powerful role of the major media and elements of the government in selling the WC fairy tale.  As a refresher, you ought to read the revies in the NY tImes of the WR when it came out in 1964.  It was, they said, a masterful work that answered all the questions about what happened.  That set the stage for the media's performance ever since.

[David Von Pein]

27 minutes ago, Denis Morissette said:

How does this [smear campaign against Vincent T. Bugliosi] help with the JFK assassination case?

It doesn't (of course).

But for CTers in the last few years, it's been open season on Bugliosi with respect to everything Vince ever did in his 80 years of life, despite the fact that absolutely none of the incessant attacks on VB weakens or refutes any of the evidence that pours forth from Vincent's "Reclaiming History".

CTers love engaging in the same type of smear campaigns against Gerald Posner too. But they failed there too, because Posner's "Case Closed" will forever be a great evidence-based book on the JFK case---even with the CTer smear campaigns aimed at the book's author forever in place.

Edited August 14, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Karl Hilliard said:

Didn't other employees state that Oswald was upstairs before 12? That almost sounds like Shelley supplying an alibi for Oswald right there. As a lone assassin, Lee should have been hunkered down in the snipers nest at noon ready to shoot.

The WC thought the same way--that the shooter would have to have been in place well before the motorcade was supposed to be there--which if I recall was 12:15. So they disregarded the statements of Eddie Piper--one of the most consistent witnesses. Piper had claimed numerous times starting on 11-22-63 that he spoke to Oswald downstairs around 12:00, which supported Oswald's claim he came downstairs for lunch. Bill Shelley and Carolyn Arnold also said they saw him downstairs at lunchtime.  A few years back I re-read all the reports and testimony regarding the whereabouts of people in the TSBD leading up to the shooting, and it became crystal clear to me that Joe Ball and David Belin--who were tasked with placing Oswald in the sniper's nest--had deliberately avoided certain witnesses (e.g. Saundra Styles and Peggy Ann Garner) and had deliberately misrepresented or distorted the testimony of other witnesses (e.g. Eddie Piper and Jack Dougherty) in order to sell the Oswald did-it scenario. They also misrepresented the circumstances of the descent of the elevators at lunchtime. The bulk of the testimony of the men who'd engaged in the elevator race suggested that Oswald wanted to ride down with Givens, but Givens refused to stop. The commission's staff, however, spun this into Oswald's not wanting to come down with them, but telling them to leave the gate open on the west elevator at the bottom so he could call the elevator back up after the shooting. 

This and other WC deceptions and distortions are discussed in great detail in Chapter 4: Pinning the Tale on the Oswald. 

 

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

It doesn't (of course).

But for CTers in the last few years, it's been open season on Bugliosi with respect to everything Vince ever did in his 80 years of life, despite the fact that absolutely none of the incessant attacks on VB weakens or refutes any of the evidence that pours forth from Vincent's "Reclaiming History".

CTers love engaging in the same type of smear campaigns against Gerald Posner too. But they failed there too, because Posner's "Case Closed" will forever be a great evidence-based book on the JFK case---even with the CTer smear campaigns aimed at the book's author forever in place.

While I would agree that the personal flaws of men like Posner and Bugliosi does not preclude their being correct about the  Kennedy assassination, it's hard to feel sorry for them seeing as the smearing of CTs has long been among he prime M.O.s of Warren Commission defenders. Many of the early defenses of the commission involved questioning the patriotism of men like Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg and Edward Epstein. These defenses pretty much said that they were leftist Jews who couldn't be trusted. I think it was Posner (and perhaps even Bugliosi) who tarred Sylvia Meagher with this same brush--that her book was not to be trusted because she once admitted she was one of perhaps 100 million Americans who immediately suspected right-wingers were behind Kennedy's death. (In retrospect this was like saying someone is racist because they immediately suspected Salmon Rushdie's attacker was a Muslim.) As I recall, similar smears have been used against Garrison (who had a breakdown of sorts during the Korean War, and was thereby a total loon) and Stone (who had questioned America's involvement in Vietnam and subsequent wars and was thereby an America-hater.)  

So what's bad for the goose is bad for the gander. 

[David Von Pein]

42 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

They also misrepresented the circumstances of the descent of the elevators at lunchtime. The bulk of the testimony of the men who'd engaged in the elevator race suggested that Oswald wanted to ride down with Givens, but Givens refused to stop. The commission's staff, however, spun this into Oswald's not wanting to come down with them, but telling them to leave the gate open on the west elevator at the bottom so he could call the elevator back up after the shooting. 

But, remember, the testimony of Charles Givens makes it pretty clear that Oswald TWICE asked for an elevator to be sent back up to him on the 6th floor.

I know that most (if not all) Internet CTers believe that Charlie Givens was nothing but a big fat li@r when he said he went back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes after he first raced the two elevators downstairs with his co-workers. But Givens' testimony will still be there for all time, regardless of what anybody thinks of it...

WCR, pg. 143: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0084a.htm

Mr. GIVENS. I say, "Boy, are you going downstairs?"

Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you?

Mr. GIVENS. I say, "It's near lunch time." He said, "No, sir. When you get downstairs, close the gate to the elevator." That meant the elevator on the west side, you can pull both gates down and it will come up by itself.

-------------------------------------

And for those CTers who think that Charles Givens was coerced by the authorities into making up a false story about going back upstairs to get his cancer sticks, here's why that belief is a silly one:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Charles+Givens

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Robbie Robertson]

1 hour ago, Denis Morissette said:

How does this help with the JFK assassination case?

Lol half the stuff on this forum doesn’t help the case it’s bickering over this or that 

 

but if Vince bugilosi wrote a book on Oswald did it or I think it’s called Reclaiming History and has received awards and been interviewed on major news networks and you find out he’s a bad guy you would think twice about the medias taste in the right narrative on jfk. And saying CT’s smear campaign is bs because LN would be doing the same and they do when it is on the CT side

Edited August 14, 2022 by Robbie Robertson

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

• 
   

Wow. Let's break this down. 

"1. Hosty never said that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting. He never said it, at least not on the record.  

Oswald told Hosty he went out to watch the P parade after eating his lunch.  There was a shooting as the motorcade, that Oswald said he went to see, it passed the TSBD.  The plain meaning of Oswald's statement is obvious. (1. It was not Oswald's statement. It was a line from a draft of a report to be written by Hosty that did not make it into his final report. Neither Hosty's completed report nor any of the other reports said this was Oswald's alibi. It may be what you want to believe. But that doesn't make it true.) You keep asserting Oswald could have meant some other time by his statement, but offer neither reasoned analysis nor any basis for your claim. If Oswald wasn't out front at the time of the shooting when was he out there? (2. Oswald is reported to have said he went outside after the shots. But he may also have said something about wanting to go outside or even going outside before the arrival of the motorcade, but then coming back inside. In any case, Hosty and all witnesses to the interview were consistent in that they said Oswald told them he was inside the Domino Room at the time of the shooting. They had no one to refute this. So their lying about his claiming as much makes little or no sense.)

"And no one who knew him ever came forward claiming he'd said it in private."  

(3. This was clearly a reference to Hosty, not Oswald.)

He said it in the initial questioning as recorded by Hosty.  This is a diversion. (4. Your interpretation of a line in the draft of a report is the diversion. No witnesses to the interviews said Oswald claimed as much. Oswald failed to say so himself when given the opportunity. And his family failed to say he said as much. If you read the record you will probably find dozens if not hundreds of statements which disagree with each other. You can not simply pick the one you like and claim all the others must be part of a cover-up. Particularly when the statement you choose to believe doesn't even say what you claim it does...)

2.  "The note in which he said Oswald went outside to watch the P. Parade does not specify that this was Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shooting. This is an assumption made by those who want to believe that's what it says, but in fact it does not say it."

I've lost track of the number of times you have said that Oswald saying he went out to watch the motorcade does not establish where he was when the shots rang out.  See above. (5. So you admit you can not count. So why is it then that we are supposed to trust your interpretation of a line in a report that does not specify what you claim it does? Oh, wait, sorry. That was the technique used by Joe Ball to discredit problematic witnesses. I present it here to demonstrate that I am fully aware of how and to what extent Ball and Belin pinned the tale on the Oswald. And yet there was no need for them to discredit the witnesses who saw Oswald outside. Because, by golly, there were no such witnesses.)

Let's see if I can clarify something. If nothing else, Oswald saying he "went outside to watch the P Parade" means he couldn't have been shooting Kennedy from the 6th floor doesn't it?  He wouldn't have shot Kennedy and then went outside to watch the parade that was already over, that he had just destroyed, would he? (6. Few have argued for Oswald's innocence regarding the shooting of Kennedy as forcefully as myself. I have spoken at numerous conferences and I have written what amounts to 5-6 books on the subject. Having read all the testimony regarding the shooting, and having created the largest database of witness statements regarding the shooting, and having read hundreds of articles and textbooks on sniping, wound ballistics, forensic radiology, forensic pathology, neutron activation analysis, fingerprint analysis and cognitive psychology, it can probably be said that I know as much about the shooting as anyone. So do I think Oswald was up on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting? Of course not. But it's not because of one line in a disregarded draft by an FBI agent.)

A couple of times you have flirted with the idea, and do so in this piece again, that Hosty was mistaken, that perhaps Oswald never said it.  But we know Hosty was at the questioning and wrote the passage.  You offer nothing but bald conjecture that perhaps Hosty was mistaken or somehow didn't actually write it.  More below. (7. I never said I thought Hosty didn't write it. And my conjecture that if he did mean for the P. Parade line to represent Oswald's alibi that he was probably mistaken is on much more solid ground than your conjecture that he was not mistaken. To repeat, because it bears repeating... No one saw Oswald outside. No one who was at the interviews with Oswald said he said he was outside. No one in Oswald's family said he said he was outside. And Oswald himself, in his multiple chats with the media on 11-22 and 11-23 never said he was outside. There is no there there. Why is this so hard to see???)

You can dance around the topic where he was at the time of the killing all you want.  I, for one, don't know his exact position when the shots rang out.  Was he on the steps, or perhaps was he a few seconds late but there when Darnell swung his camera around? (8. Aha! The moment of truth. You think you see Oswald in Darnell, and you are willing to scramble everything up so you won't have to admit the possibility you're mistaken. Never mind that many of those involved in the initial threads about "Prayer Man" including myself, failed to see Oswald in Darnell. Never mind that some of the most famous CTs' have seen clear versions of Darnell and thought it inconclusive or worse. You think you see something! Hooray for you! But that doesn't mean there's a strong factual basis for this belief.)

Doesn't really matter does it?  If Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor pulling the trigger, there needs to be a reckoning as to who murdered Kennedy.    

"The first researcher to uncover this note, Malcolm Blunt, moreover, failed to see it as significant. Malcolm Blunt is a cautious man."

You're claiming the support of Malcolm Blunt for your conjecture?  Pretty outrageous. Have you seen the videos in which Kamp and Blunt discuss the material?  Has Blunt objected to Kamp's interpretation that the note was Oswald's alibi?  Did you ask Blunt before making your claim? (9. Blunt is friends with Bart, so I wouldn't expect him to nay-say Bart's discovery. I've met Blunt, and found him to be very cautious, and mostly interested in the paper trail among the intelligence agencies. I don't recall his ever saying he thought "Prayer Man" was Oswald but I could be wrong. Some very smart people have some very silly theories regarding this case. Prof.s Gerald Mcknight, David Wrone, and James Fetzer, for example, continued to claim it was Oswald in the Altgens photo long after it became apparent to most everyone else this was nonsense.) 

 

"3. IF in fact Hosty did mean to write that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting, we have little reason to believe it. Let's break this down as well...

a. The FBI's report was co-written by Hosty with Bookhout. The absence of this claim from this report would indicate then that Bookhout failed to back up Hosty's recollection."

No, it means that after Oswald was fingered and then murdered both recognized his alibi contradicts their narrative and they dropped it. (10. This makes no sense. The alibi they said Oswald offered contradicted their narrative. The alibi you say they rejected--that Oswald was outside--would have helped their narrative--tremendously--as there were no witnesses to his being outside and they could have used this to paint him as a xxxx.)

"b. None of the other attendees at the interview said Oswald claimed he was outside at the time of the shooting." 

C'mon, Pat, none of the "attendees" (you mean the cops) were going to  back Oswald's alibi. (11. As stated, Oswald's claiming he was outside when there were no witnesses claiming they saw him outside would have been of tremendous help to the DPD and FBI.)

"c. Oswald himself, despite numerous opportunities, never said he was outside at the time of the shooting when speaking to the press, or speaking to his family. "

You have no reliable way of knowing what he told his family. (12. What? Robert said Lee told him not to trust the so-called evidence. Well, how much of a leap would it have been for Robert to have reported that Lee had said he was outside? Marina, for that matter, has claimed for decades that she now believes Lee was innocent. Lee's daughters have also said as much. And we all know about Marguerite. IF he'd told anyone in the family he was outside at the time of the shooting, it is highly likely they would have said as much.) As for not blurting out his alibi in the hallway, he was too savvy for that. (13. Absolutely not. The "savvy" thing would have been for him to say "I was outside at the time of the shooting. I implore the following witnesses (he would then name the witnesses) to come forward and say as much so a hunt for the actual shooter(s) can begin.") Had he been able to have a lawyer, which he had been asking for right from the moment of his arrest, you wouldn't be able to raise such a silly point.  The first thing a lawyer would have told him is to keep his mouth shut. (14. Yes, but right after he told Oswald to shut up, he would put out a statement outlining Oswald's alibi and asking for witnesses to come forward. I mean, really. Oswald was not gonna get cleared based upon his claim he was outside. He would need witnesses to back it up. And the more time that passed between the shooting and his appeal for witnesses, the less likely he was to find such witnesses.)  Besides, it was obvious that the hallway reporters were told he was the killer, and were out for the story, for blood in other words.  When he blurted that he was just a patsy as he was being shoved into an elevator, did any of these guys look into his claim. Of course not. (15. Apples and oranges. Crime reporters are not used to investigating whether or not a suspect is being framed. They are used to tracking down potential witnesses, however. If Oswald had named the names of people who could verify he was outside, a mob of reporters would have been at the homes of these people within minutes.)

"Points a-c, then, when taken in combination, would suggest that IF the line in Hosty's draft about Oswald being outside was meant to represent Oswald's alibi at the time of the shooting, that Hosty was simply mistaken."

None of the points stands on its own merits and together they show nothing of the sort. (16. Let me see. None of the witnesses support your conjecture. And all of the witnesses support my conjecture. Yes, it's best you declare victory and run away. Or worse... stay... and repeat easily debunked arguments.) 

"Particularly in that...

d. As no witnesses said anything about Oswald being outside at the time of the shooting in the days following the shooting, Oswald's saying he was outside at the time of the shooting would have been highly damaging, and central to the case the DPD and FBI were building against Oswald."

Oswald's alibi, if allowed to be offered in court, let's say, would have been highly damaging to him?  Did I read that right?  Wow.  I'm out of words. (17. Geez. Think for a second. If he said he was outside it wasn't an alibi, it was a FAILED alibi, that would almost certainly guarantee his conviction and execution.)

"Its absence from the reports on his interviews, then, can only be seen as an indication he never said such a thing..."

Its absence from the reports on his interviews, then, can only be seen as an indication that those concocting a narrative to frame Oswald were not going to allow anything that contradicted their story to see the light of day, (18. Nonsense. Much of what Oswald claimed contradicted their story. This was exactly what they wanted, moreover. They could use this to paint him as a xxxx.)

 

if they could help it.  There.  I fixed your sentence for you.

 

And no, I'm not done...

"The belief Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting, and that this was covered up, strongly suggests that Oswald's saying as much would have carried some weight with the public. This was a man who'd publicly declared his innocence, and said he was a "patsy". It's hard to see then that a report claiming he'd said he was outside at the time of the shooting would need to be covered up."

The opposite is true. Oswald's alibi needed to be covered up (19. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. It was not an alibi. It was a failed alibi that would have almost certainly guaranteed his conviction. If Oswald had said he was outside no one would have needed to cover it up. In fact, they would have leaked it to the press within days to prove he was a xxxx.) and he had to be murdered so that the WC had free reign to invent their a story. (20. It's a minor quibble but I would beg to differ. In my estimation Oswald had to be murdered because the case against him was bound to fall apart under close scrutiny from a competent lawyer, and the reputations of a number of prominent men would have suffered.) Including ridiculous yarns like the magic bullet and 2nd floor lunch room encounter.

"We know, moreover, that this possibility was explored by the first generation of critics. The Altgens photo, and Billy Lovelady's resemblance to Oswald, led to a full-court press of researchers into Dallas searching for someone, anyone, who would verify that Oswald was outside. It failed miserably, to such an extent even that Mark Lane, in an effort to bolster the credibility of the research community, publicly declared that it was not Oswald in the Altgens photo. We then jump forward 40 years or so. Now someone thinks they see Oswald in a different photo, and the arguments begin anew. But something is overlooked. The early researchers combed Dallas looking for witnesses to suggest a conspiracy. They found witnesses who were willing to state they saw smoke on the knoll. They found witnesses who'd stood in front of the depository, who'd thought the shots came from their right. They found witnesses who said someone who didn't look like Oswald had killed Tippit. But did they find one witness claiming Oswald was outside? No, not one. "

Not one witness.  Because If he was on the steps, Oswald was back in the corner behind everyone in front of him focused on first the motorcade, then the commotion once the shots were fired. (22. Excuse me if I'm incorrect, but my recollection is that the Prayer Man theory has Oswald sticking around by the entrance for some time after the shooting. And yet no one saw him. Truly, Baker and Reid said they saw him up on the second, which by no means suggests he'd been up on the sixth and actually suggests he had not been up on the sixth, but no one said they saw Oswald just after the shooting on the first. Is that correct?)

More than that, in your tale of the search for witnesses to back up Oswald, you show little or no understanding of either the atmosphere of intimidation at the time, or the powerful role of the major media and elements of the government in selling the WC fairy tale. (23. Lecturing me about the witnesses is a bit silly. A large number of witnesses said things they knew raised doubts about the lone-assassin scenario. Many said they thought the shots came from the train yards. Many said the last two shots were bang-bang, too close together to have been fired by a bolt-action rifle  And a number of those on the overpass said they saw smoke by the picket fence. You also fail to realize that stories about Oswald's being in the Altgens photo and the WC's failing to talk to Tague were in fact covered by the major media. So this idea that everyone was scared and the evil media was anxious to shut everyone up is just not true.) As a refresher, you ought to read the revies in the NY tImes of the WR when it came out in 1964.  It was, they said, a masterful work that answered all the questions about what happened.  That set the stage for the media's performance ever since. (24. Oh my, dude. My review and analysis of the media's coverage of the 50th anniversary of the assassination has been cited in books on media. It was even praised by John McAdams, who begrudgingly had to admit that the 50th anniversary coverage had a clear LN bias it's called The Onslaught, Parts 1 and 2, and can be found on my website).

 

My responses in bold.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But, remember, the testimony of Charles Givens makes it pretty clear that Oswald TWICE asked for an elevator to be sent back up to him on the 6th floor.

I know that most (if not all) Internet CTers believe that Charlie Givens was nothing but a big fat li@r when he said he went back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes after he first raced the two elevators downstairs with his co-workers. But Givens' testimony will still be there for all time, regardless of what anybody thinks of it...

WCR, pg. 143: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0084a.htm

Mr. GIVENS. I say, "Boy, are you going downstairs?"

Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you?

Mr. GIVENS. I say, "It's near lunch time." He said, "No, sir. When you get downstairs, close the gate to the elevator." That meant the elevator on the west side, you can pull both gates down and it will come up by itself.

-------------------------------------

And for those CTers who think that Charles Givens was coerced by the authorities into making up a false story about going back upstairs to get his cancer sticks, here's why that belief is a silly one:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Charles+Givens

 

Feel free to start a separate thread on this so I can refute this nonsense. 

[Michael Griffith]

On 8/2/2022 at 8:16 PM, Gerry Down said:

I wonder why Out Of The Blank videos get such few views. Its turning out to be a good youtube channel to the JFK research community. 

This morning I included a link to Out of the Blank on my Recommended Websites page on my JFK Assassination Website. I hope that will help spread the word about Robbie's very worthwhile channel.