Prayer Man

[John Butler]

14 hours 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...

From:

"Prayer Man: Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

“The early interrogation reports were sketchy, but they do shed light on where Lee Oswald said he was. According to the notes of Police Captain Will Fritz, Oswald claimed to be out in front with his boss, Bill Shelley.”

There is only one time that Oswald could be outside on the steps with Shelley.  That is during the P Parade as stated by Hosty.  Shelley and Lovelady left the steps after the shooting.  If Oswald came out late then Shelley and Lovelady were gone presumably to the railroad yards.  But, probably back into the building.

[Michael Griffith]

9 hours 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.

I can't fathom how any serious, credible researcher could claim in 2022 that Posner's Case Closed is "a great evidence-based book." 

I have not yet seen a WC apologist explain the evidence that Anthony Summers presents regarding Oswald's whereabouts from 12:00-12:30 in the 2013 edition of Not in Your Lifetime (pp. 88-96).

Have any WC defenders taken a stab at explaining the superb segment on this issue in Stone's new documentary JFK Revisited?

 

[Pat Speer]

50 minutes ago, John Butler said:

From:

"Prayer Man: Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

“The early interrogation reports were sketchy, but they do shed light on where Lee Oswald said he was. According to the notes of Police Captain Will Fritz, Oswald claimed to be out in front with his boss, Bill Shelley.”

There is only one time that Oswald could be outside on the steps with Shelley.  That is during the P Parade as stated by Hosty.  Shelley and Lovelady left the steps after the shooting.  If Oswald came out late then Shelley and Lovelady were gone presumably to the railroad yards.  But, probably back into the building.

Here we run into the same problem. Fritz's notes were disjointed and made up of sentence fragments. The out front with Bill Shelley reference is quite possibly a reference to how Oswald left the building, and not a reference to where he was when the shooting occurred. As stated, if Oswald had told them he was outside during the shooting, they would have screamed this to the hills, as there were no witnesses to his being outside at this time, and this would have been as good as a confession.

I mean, think about it. If James Earl Ray had told the FBI he'd been at a crowded restaurant when he was thought to have been shooting MLK, and no one at this restaurant would confirm that he was there, they would have leaked this to the press and it would have convicted him in the eyes of the public...to such an extent even that doubts about his guilt may never have surfaced. It may also have squelched his plea agreement. The prosecution knew they had a hard case to prove, and chose to offer up life in prison. If he'd said he was in a crowd and no one would corroborate it, this may have been the final nail in his coffin. But he didn't.

So why is it then that people are so anxious to believe Oswald offered up an "alibi" that could easily be disproved...that was then hidden by the coppers? I mean, it's really very silly when one takes a step back. 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Roger Odisio]

a few responses:

"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.)

RO:  So Oswald's statement, recorded by Hosty was not a statement, but merely a line in a draft report that was later removed.  We should ignore it because it was later removed by Oswald's framers after he was fingered as the assassin  and murdered so he couldn't defend himself.  Instead we should credit what you say Oswald "is reported to have said" (note the passive voice; reported by whom, said to whom?) about going outside after the shots (how long after; could he have been in Darnell based on this claim?), or maybe merely wanting to go outside (which directly contradicts what Hosty wrote that he said) etc.

But my favorite part of your repartee is referring to the "witnesses to the interview" which you have been doing throughout, as if they were disinterested third parties (i.e., classic witnesses).  They were the people in charge at the first incidence, of building the case to frame Oswald! 

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.)

RO:  This paragraph should be beneath you.

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.)

RO:  Yes, there some good reasons to conclude Oswald was not on the 6th floor during the shooting.  But where was he?  That's a different question.  Don't mix them up.  Hosty's note is evidence about where Oswald *was*.

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.)

RO:  Mere mention of Darnell set you off on this bizarre rant.  I didn't say anything about "what I see" in Darnell.  But clearly the discussion of Darnell bothers you.  I don't know why.  New discoveries are made all the time.  How would the discovery that Prayerman is indeed Oswald affect your voluminous and well respected work on the case?  Have you  said whether you are interested in seeing a Darnell image that could answer the question about Prayerman's identity?    

"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.) 

RO:  Blunt is a cautious man, universally recognized as a serious researcher.  But he's Bart's friend and can't be expected to criticize what Bart said, you say.  Under cover of that "explanation" you thought you could get away with saying Blunt failed to see the Hosty note as significant and wouldn't say so even if that were true.

"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.)

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.)  

RO:  You don't seem to understand that the burden would be on the prosecution to prove Oswald's guilt, not on Oswald to prove his innocence.  You don't think he did it.  I don't either.  I suspect many who worked on framing him knew he didn't do either.  For example at the end of his life Arlen Spector asked to have lunch with Salandria.  He knew that Salandria knew what he did.  Unfortunately Salandria was too polite.  He he been in the same position, Salandria said, he might have done what Spector did.  That may have eased Spector's mind.  Trick is, however, as a man of integrity, Salandria would never have been chosen for the job.   The prosecution did not have a case and they knew it.  One reason Oswald was quickly murdered before he could get a lawyer to help him.

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.)

RO;  But there were no one who was willing to challenge the narrative the framers concocted, as history has shown.

These were "crime reporters" shouting at him in the hallway?

"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.) 

RO:  I don't expect "run away", Pat.  Another statement that should be beneath you. 

"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.

RO:  That the case against him was bound to fall apart (I agree) is a strange thing to admit all the way down here.  After repeatedly claiming that had Oswald offered his alibi in court he would have been convicted because he couldn't collaborate it as if he had the burden to prove his innocence.  But yes, they knew their case was weak, that at least some of the lies and distortions used in the WR would be revealed, and the last thing they could allow was for Oswald to be able to defend himself.   All of which led to murdering Oswald and quickly.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So why is it then that people are so anxious to believe Oswald offered up an "alibi" that could easily be disproved...?

 

It's not that we're anxious to believe that Pat. We believe it because that is what the evidence shows!

The way you ask that question... you make it sound like Oswald simply made up an exonerating alibi. (You: "Oswald offered up an "alibi" that could easily be disproved") No! We don't believe he made it up at all! We believe that he indeed was out with Bill Shelley.

There is nothing about this that is hard to understand. We believe that Oswald told the truth, and that is what Hosty and Fritz first reported.

Later they decided to move his alibi to the first floor because otherwise everybody (reporters) would be looking for outdoor witnesses who'd seen Oswald out there. In addition, they had to find out exactly who on the steps saw Oswald out there so that they could shut them up.

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

An interesting argument I think.

It may lead to why the whole Truly/Baker/Oswald incident had to be constructed

[Tom Gram]

Pat, isn't it your own theory that Oswald ran into Bill Shelly on the way out of the TSBD, and that Shelly subsequently lied about it because he didn't want to be the guy who let the killer go free? Indulge me for a moment in a scenario in which another potential witness to Oswald's whereabouts might lie about it:

Hypothetically, let's assume that Buell Frazier was the only true witness to Oswald's brief appearance in the shadowy corner of the TSBD steps. Oswald says in his interrogations he stepped outside for a moment to watch the parade. The interrogators then ask him if any witness can corroborate his alibi. Oswald says Buell Wesley Frazier, the guy who drove him to work. The DPD is already hellbent on pinning the assassination on Oswald, so they immediately arrest Frazier as a co-conspirator. Frazier is interrogated and subsequently given a polygraph. Frazier is terrified and doesn't want to get electrocuted, so he's forced to lie to save his own ass. 

The polygraph goes something like this:

DPD: We know Oswald did it, and he's saying he was with you during the shots. Were you on the steps of the TSBD during the shots?

BWF: Yes  (No Response)

DPD: Did you see Oswald on the steps?

BWF: No (Response)

The DPD releases Frazier, and tells the world he passed his polygraph. They even tell Frazier he passed the polygraph, and in a veiled threat make it very clear to him that he did not see Oswald on the steps. The polygraph disappears forever. 

Years later, Jim Garrison calls Frazier in to testify in the Shaw case. Frazier does not know what Garrison has, and is terrified that his secret has gotten out. He asks for protection from the press, and nervously begins asking questions about the nature of Garrison's case. He asks, out of the blue, if Garrison's ADAs had ever seen the Doorway Man photo that allegedly depicts Billy Lovelady. The ADAs, perplexed, ask him if he thinks Doorway Man is Oswald. Frazier gives the cryptic answer "I know that was not him". (This actually happened)

I try to approach this kind of thing from a probability standpoint, and I don't think a scenario like this is anywhere close to impossible. IF Frazier was in fact a witness to Oswald on the steps, and the only witness, the DPD's handling of Frazier and disappearance of the polygraph are not at all difficult to view through that lens. 

Will I be surprised if PM turns out to not be Oswald? No, but there's enough circumstantial evidence that we should all support the effort to obtain better quality scans and end the debate for good, IMO.  

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It's not that we're anxious to believe that Pat. We believe it because that is what the evidence shows!

The way you ask that question... you make it sound like Oswald simply made up an exonerating alibi. (You: "Oswald offered up an "alibi" that could easily be disproved") No! We don't believe he made it up at all! We believe that he indeed was out with Bill Shelley.

There is nothing about this that is hard to understand. We believe that Oswald told the truth, and that is what Hosty and Fritz first reported.

Later they decided to move his alibi to the first floor because otherwise everybody (reporters) would be looking for outdoor witnesses who'd seen Oswald out there. In addition, they had to find out exactly who on the steps saw Oswald out there so that they could shut them up.

 

But it's a fantasy, Sandy. First of all, you don't believe Oswald told the truth. You believe YOUR interpretation of an image, and YOUR interpretation of some vague notes. And in order to bolster YOUR belief in YOUR own powers, you disregard the statements of Frazier, Truly, Baker, Reid, etc... which when taken in sum suggest Oswald's innocence. 

It's a circular firing squad. In order for you to be right, the best witnesses for Oswald's innocence must all be XXXXX. So XXXXX they be.

In the meantime, the orchestrators and defenders of the official lies are dancing a jig. 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

50 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Pat, isn't it your own theory that Oswald ran into Bill Shelly on the way out of the TSBD, and that Shelly subsequently lied about it because he didn't want to be the guy who let the killer go free? Indulge me for a moment in a scenario in which another potential witness to Oswald's whereabouts might lie about it:

Hypothetically, let's assume that Buell Frazier was the only true witness to Oswald's brief appearance in the shadowy corner of the TSBD steps. Oswald says in his interrogations he stepped outside for a moment to watch the parade. The interrogators then ask him if any witness can corroborate his alibi. Oswald says Buell Wesley Frazier, the guy who drove him to work. The DPD is already hellbent on pinning the assassination on Oswald, so they immediately arrest Frazier as a co-conspirator. Frazier is interrogated and subsequently given a polygraph. Frazier is terrified and doesn't want to get electrocuted, so he's forced to lie to save his own ass. 

The polygraph goes something like this:

DPD: We know Oswald did it, and he's saying he was with you during the shots. Were you on the steps of the TSBD during the shots?

BWF: Yes  (No Response)

DPD: Did you see Oswald on the steps?

BWF: No (Response)

The DPD releases Frazier, and tells the world he passed his polygraph. They even tell Frazier he passed the polygraph, and in a veiled threat make it very clear to him that he did not see Oswald on the steps. The polygraph disappears forever. 

Years later, Jim Garrison calls Frazier in to testify in the Shaw case. Frazier does not know what Garrison has, and is terrified that his secret has gotten out. He asks for protection from the press, and nervously begins asking questions about the nature of Garrison's case. He asks, out of the blue, if Garrison's ADAs had ever seen the Doorway Man photo that allegedly depicts Billy Lovelady. The ADAs, perplexed, ask him if he thinks Doorway Man is Oswald. Frazier gives the cryptic answer "I know that was not him". (This actually happened)

I try to approach this kind of thing from a probability standpoint, and I don't think a scenario like this is anywhere close to impossible. IF Frazier was in fact a witness to Oswald on the steps, and the only witness, the DPD's handling of Frazier and disappearance of the polygraph are not at all difficult to view through that lens. 

Will I be surprised if PM turns out to not be Oswald? No, but there's enough circumstantial evidence that we should all support the effort to obtain better quality scans and end the debate for good, IMO.  

Have you ever met Frazier? He has said from day one that the paper bag he saw in Oswald's possession was not the bag pulled from the depository. He has said further that the bag he saw was less than half the size of this bag. And he has also said that Oswald did not bring a bag out to the house on the 21st. And, oh yeah, he has also said that Oswald was a smart fellow who loved children. In short, he is one of the best witnesses for Oswald's innocence. The idea floated by people who've never met him--that he is part of some cover-up--is both ridiculous and insulting. 

As far as his reticence to talk to Garrison's people... I hope you know that most all the witnesses were reluctant to talk to them. The word had been put out that Garrison was in it for the publicity, and his personal behavior didn't exactly help. The bit about the Altgens photo is most telling, for that matter, People desperate to believe Oswald was on the steps had been contacting Frazier and other witnesses to ask them if it was Oswald in the photo. The witnesses all said it was Lovelady. And yet the parade of believers continued, and continues to this day. Presumably, Frazier was testing them to see if they were gonna try to get him to say it was Oswald. 

This ties back in to Prayer Man. I have witnessed Frazier being asked abut Prayer Man, and it's clear he is quite tired of it. But he always says he's not sure who that is, but he feels certain it isn't Oswald. He says if it was Oswald he would have remembered Oswald being there. 

"Well, that's it" the Prayer Man devotees are saying, This proves Frazier was in on it. Only...no. It proves something about themselves but next to nothing about Frazier. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

But it's a fantasy, Sandy.

 

I believe what Fritz and Hosty first reported, that Oswald was outside watching the presidential parade with Shelley. How is that fantasy?

 

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

First of all, you don't believe Oswald told the truth.

 

Yes I do.

 

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You believe YOUR interpretation of an image,

 

I didn't say a word about Prayer Man. That's a separate issue.

 

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You believe ... YOUR interpretation of a vague statement.

 

It's not a vague statement that needs interpretation. It is crystal clear. Especially Hosty's version of the event: Oswald went outside to watch the presidential parade.

 

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

And in order to bolster YOUR belief in YOUR own infallibility, you disregard the statements of Frazier, Truly, Baker, Reid, etc... which when taken in sum suggest Oswald's innocence. 

 

I'm not looking for evidence of Oswald's innocence... I'm looking for the truth.

 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Have you ever met Frazier? He has said from day one that the paper bag he saw in Oswald's possession was not the bag pulled from the depository. He has said further that the bag he saw was less than half the size of this bag. And he has also said that Oswald did not bring a bag out to the house on the 21st. And, oh yeah, he has also said that Oswald was a smart fellow who loved children. In short, he is one of the best witnesses for Oswald's innocence. The idea floated by people who've never met him--that he is part of some cover-up--is both ridiculous and insulting. 

As far as his reticence to talk to Garrison's people... I hope you know that most all the witnesses were reluctant to talk to them. The word had been put out that Garrison was in it for the publicity, and his personal behavior didn't exactly help. The bit about the Altgens photo is most telling, for that matter, People desperate to believe Oswald was on the steps had been contacting Frazier and other witnesses to ask them if it was Oswald in the photo. The witnesses all said it was Lovelady. And yet the parade of believers continued, and continues to this day. Presumably, Frazier was testing them to see if they were gonna try to get him to say it was Oswald. 

This ties back in to Prayer Man. I have witnessed Frazier being asked abut Prayer Man, and it's clear he is quite tired of it. But he always says he's not sure who that is, but he feels certain it isn't Oswald. He says if it was Oswald he would have remembered Oswald being there. 

"Well, that's it" the Prayer Man devotees are saying, This proves Frazier was in on it. Only...no. It proves something about themselves but next to nothing about Frazier. 

 

Pat, I was just proposing a hypothetical scenario based on the disappearance of Frazier’s polygraph, his bizarre statements to Garrison’s ADA’s about Doorway Man, and the possibility, however remote, of Frazier being a sole witness to Oswald being outside. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force, and it’s not hard to imagine a scared 19 year old kid being intimidated and threatened into not corroborating Oswald’s alibi - hell and maybe even trying to convince himself the police were actually right. There are quite a few shades of grey between Frazier being a pillar of unwavering credibility and “part of some cover-up”, so I don’t really understand what’s so insulting here. 

I have not met Frazier, but do you think your own bias towards him might be clouding your objectivity a bit? Your interpretations of Frazier’s attitude and statements may very well be correct, but you also might be completely wrong; and the only way to find out is getting better scans. If the films reveal Oswald, Frazier will have some explaining to do. If the films reveal someone else, we all get a better photo record of Dealey Plaza and can stop arguing and move on. It’s a win-win. My point is it’s a solvable problem, and despite your repeated story about the supposedly crystal-clear Darnell film, which has been contradicted by someone directly involved, it seems to me like the most productive way forward is to start and support a unified campaign to obtain the films from NBC or whoever by the 60th anniversary. 

I honestly won’t be surprised if Oswald isn’t PM. Disappointment and the JFK case seem to go hand-in-hand - but the reason you attract such heated debate on this topic is that you are trying to spin an ambiguous situation as definitive, and that’s just not the case here Pat. Oswald really might be PM, and trying to convince people there is no chance whatsoever just isn’t very convincing. The only way you’re going to do that is by getting ahold of better scans, so instead of endlessly arguing why can’t we all collaborate somehow and actively work towards obtaining the films? Even DVP is on board. Everyone has strong opinions on PM but I’d like to think we are all interested in the truth, and this is one of very few topics in the case where the truth can actually be known. 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Pat Speer]

7 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Pat, I was just proposing a hypothetical scenario based on the disappearance of Frazier’s polygraph, his bizarre statements to Garrison’s ADA’s about Doorway Man, and the possibility, however remote, of Frazier being a sole witness to Oswald being outside. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force, and it’s not hard to imagine a scared 19 year old kid being intimidated and threatened into not corroborating Oswald’s alibi - hell and maybe even trying to convince himself the police were actually right. There are quite a few shades of grey between Frazier being a pillar of unwavering credibility and “part of some cover-up”, so I don’t really understand what’s so insulting here. 

I have not met Frazier, but do you think your own bias towards him might be clouding your objectivity a bit? Your interpretations of Frazier’s attitude and statements may very well be correct, but you also might be completely wrong; and the only way to find out is getting better scans. If the films reveal Oswald, Frazier will have some explaining to do. If the films reveal someone else, we all get a better photo record of Dealey Plaza and can stop arguing and move on. It’s a win-win. My point is it’s a solvable problem, and despite your repeated story about the supposedly crystal-clear Darnell film, which has been contradicted by someone directly involved, it seems to me like the most productive way forward is to start and support a unified campaign to obtain the films from NBC or whoever by the 60th anniversary. 

I honestly won’t be surprised if Oswald isn’t PM. Disappointment and the JFK case seem to go hand-in-hand - but the reason you attract such heated debate on this topic is that you are trying to spin an ambiguous situation as definitive, and that’s just not the case here Pat. Oswald really might be PM, and trying to convince people  there is no chance whatsoever just isn’t very convincing. The only way you’re going to do that is by getting ahold of better scans, so instead of endlessly arguing why can’t we all collaborate somehow and actively work towards obtaining the films? Even DVP is on board. Everyone has strong opinions on PM but I’d like to think we are all interested in the truth, and this is one of very few topics in the case where the truth can actually be known. 

 

OK. Who contradicted my account? At first no one was willing to admit there was a screening. Are you telling me that someone is now sneaking around telling people they were at the screening but that the film was of low quality? I didn't see it. For all I know it may have been crap. But I have it on good word that many were convinced to a 99% certainty that the film showed Oswald, but that nothing was done because the number one mover and shaker remained unconvinced. 

If it was that the film itself was the problem, moreover,  it follows that those in the position to gain access to a better quality version of the film would have done so. But they didn't. 

I take from this that those who've seen better quality images don't believe an even higher resolution image will make a difference. But I could be wrong. I say go for it. Get a higher resolution image. But you have to understand that I've been waiting around for the believers to do something about this for more than a decade now, and no progress has been made. Instead, an alternate version of history has been created under the assumption the films show Oswald, whereby some of the best witnesses for Oswald's innocence...Baker, Truly...are now part of a plot to frame him by...giving him a decent alibi.

I mean, what the what? Oswald's calm appearance when confronted on the second floor suggested that he hadn't just raced down the stairs. Adams, Styles, and Garner supported this, moreover, in their statements regarding Adams and Styles' race down the stairs. That Oswald was seen on the second floor while some unidentified person was taking an elevator down from the upper floors, moreover, gives him a solid alibi, and strongly suggests he was not the shooter.

But for some reason that's not good enough. On the off-chance Oswald is Prayer Man, people have recombined all the evidence so that Oswald was not where the witnesses said he was--at the location suggesting his innocence--but was instead somewhere where no one saw him.

In the service of creating a dubious alibi based on their subjective interpretations of photos and documents, they have shelved what was in fact a decent alibi. To what end? For what purpose?

I have my own thoughts on this matter but they will remain a secret, much as the identity of the person claiming I misrepresented what happened at the screening. 

 

 

[Tom Gram]

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

OK. Who contradicted my account? At first no one was willing to admit there was a screening. Are you telling me that someone is now sneaking around telling people they were at the screening but that the film was of low quality? I didn't see it. For all I know it may have been crap. But I have it on good word that many were convinced to a 99% certainty that the film showed Oswald, but that nothing was done because the number one mover and shaker remained unconvinced. 

If it was that the film itself was the problem, moreover,  it follows that those in the position to gain access to a better quality version of the film would have done so. But they didn't. 

I take from this that those who've seen better quality images don't believe an even higher resolution image will make a difference. But I could be wrong. I say go for it. Get a higher resolution image. But you have to understand that I've been waiting around for the believers to do something about this for more than a decade now, and no progress has been made. Instead, an alternate version of history has been created under the assumption the films show Oswald, whereby some of the best witnesses for Oswald's innocence...Baker, Truly...are now part of a plot to frame him by...giving him a decent alibi.

I mean, what the what? Oswald's calm appearance when confronted on the second floor suggested that he hadn't just raced down the stairs. Adams, Styles, and Garner supported this, moreover, in their statements regarding Adams and Styles' race down the stairs. That Oswald was seen on the second floor while some unidentified person was taking an elevator down from the upper floors, moreover, gives him a solid alibi, and strongly suggests he was not the shooter.

But for some reason that's not good enough. On the off-chance Oswald is Prayer Man, people have recombined all the evidence so that Oswald was not where the witnesses said he was--at the location suggesting his innocence--but was instead somewhere where no one saw him.

In the service of creating a dubious alibi based on their subjective interpretations of photos and documents, they have shelved what was in fact a decent alibi. To what end? For what purpose?

I have my own thoughts on this matter but they will remain a secret, much as the identity of the person claiming I misrepresented what happened at the screening. 

 

 

Third comment from the bottom: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t587p800-prayer-man. 

I'm relatively neutral in this debate. It's not my intention to stir anything up here, and I do see your point that having two completely different and competing theories of Oswald's alibi can be counterproductive. However, I don't think the subjective interpretation of certain items of evidence by Murphy, Kamp, etc. is any less speculative than some of the interpretations in chapter 4 of your website. The evidence in many cases could really go either way.

For example, Baker's story of spotting a glimpse of Oswald through the window on the second floor is absolutely questionable - the layout and mechanism of the lunchroom vestibule door, the timing aspect, the whole thing strains credulity unless 1) Oswald was walking toward the door from the second floor office; or 2) The whole thing was a fantasy. It's a real problem, and for the encounter to have happened the way the WC said it did requires such an incredible alignment of events that it's pretty reasonable IMO to question it, and the witnesses that support it. 

That's not really my point though. My point is that the original films exist, and the chance, however minute, that PM is Oswald is worth verifying simply due to the fact that it would immediately reopen the JFK case, and if it isn't Oswald a lot of serious resources and brainpower would be redirected to more important research. Maybe I'm naive since I'm relatively new to this, but endlessly arguing over PM seems like a distraction. The goal should be to coordinate efforts on both sides of the debate toward obtaining high-definition scans of the original films, and if it isn't Oswald I'd hope everyone could just get over it and move on. If your goal is to debunk PM, the only way to really do that is by getting the scans. It's an achievable goal, but it'd be a lot more achievable if people other than those already advocating for the PM theory got behind it and got involved. Getting a better photographic record of Dealey Plaza should be of interest to everyone, as should the truth about PM, regardless of whoever it turns out to be. 

[Denis Morissette]

18 hours ago, Robbie Robertson said:

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

 

Not only what you did does not help the the case but it makes this forum even worse.

[Robbie Robertson]

1 hour ago, Denis Morissette said:

Not only what you did does not help the the case but it makes this forum even worse.

Happy to help