Prayer Man

[Pat Speer]

45 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Yes, Andrej, the authenticity of the note is a point I was trying to make as well.  Pat acknowleges that  Hosty wrote it.  But he demurs as to *when*.  Instead he says "then went outside to watch P Parade" was written sometime after the initial interrogation.  You say the when, which signifies a short passage of time, is tangential to the question of what Oswald told them.  I would go further.  It's irrelevant unless some argument can be made that Hosty's memory was somehow blurred in the interim.  But we're talking about the murder of the President and the interrogation of the main suspect.

I find the point about full sentences in the original notes no more convincing.  Hosty was the only one taking  notes at that session.  It's likely others would rely on them later. That alone could have motivated Hosty to write more completely.  As well as sharpened his focus on the details.  And the "sentence" in question contains only 7 words, no subject, and Presidential is a abbreviated with a P.

Thirty years ago Vince Salandria cautioned against getting mired in minutia when you know the broad outlines of what happened, need to develop that further, and maybe even do something about it.  This thread is an example of that.  There is disagreement among Pat, Andrej, and me about whether Oswald was on the steps or somewhere else on the first floor.  But not about the main point: *he was not on the 6th floor shooting JFK*.

Perhaps Darnell or Wiegman (Andrej:  you don't mention Darnell.  Is there a reason for that?) can someday answer exactly where Oswald was or wasn't.  Every effort should be made there.  That's what is important.

The "bit" about full sentences is conclusive. Hosty testified that his notes were full of abbreviations and not worth preserving. He also testified that a report written and signed by two FBI agents was more reliable than a draft written by one. Your proposal that he wrote full sentences for the benefit of others is just silly.

Now, of course, he wrote the draft attributed to him. And he may have even wrote that Oswald was outside as a reference to Oswald's alibi. But these are just assumptions, and Hosty's own words over many many years indicate otherwise.

So Bart's discovery is not "proof" of anything. It's a valuable discovery that helps support his chosen Prayer Man scenario. But it is not proof, or even close to it. 

Now, as to the Darnell and Wiegman films... People keep saying that maybe maybe someday we'll get a better copy and it will prove the issue one way or another. But they are in the dark. A copy reported to be extremely clear was located several years ago in a private collection, and this collector offered it to some of the mucky-mucks who are way too cool to post here. And they refused to buy it from him, or even attempt to raise the money from a go-fund-me or anything. And what's worse, these same people stopped clamoring for access to a better copy of the film, once they saw a copy they claim was crystal clear.

Well, the implication is obvious. The film did not show Oswald. It showed someone who may have been Oswald, that these people wanted to be Oswald, but it was not the smoking gun they were hoping for. 

Edited August 6, 2022 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

Now that's being objective for you.

From the guy who first brought up the idea that PM was a female.

Edited August 6, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Roger Odisio]

You and I, Pat, seem to weight things differently.  

I care that Hosty did write  that note about what Oswald said when asked where he was, which you acknowledge.  But then you say: "And he may have even wrote that Oswald was outside as a reference to Oswald's alibi. But these are just assumptions".  No, that was not just some assumption about a reference to Oswald's alibi that I and others are making, that *was* Oswald's alibi.  Hosty was recording it. And it was not some obscure point.  Surely "where were you" was the central question of the whole interrogation.

You go on to say "and Hosty's own words over many many years indicate otherwise."  I don't care about anything Hosty said later about his notes, or note taking, etc. After Oswald was murdered and could not defend himself Hosty wasn't about to say or do anything that would contradict the framing of him. 

I do care that the important phrase was suppressed and Hosty knew it.  Which gives you some inkling of his posture if you don't already understand the point. 

Not proof of anything?  Surely, Pat, Bart's posting of the note is proof that Hosty wrote it.  You've already accepted that several times.  Your attempt to lessen its importance by talking about when it was written and for what purpose, other than recording what Oswald said, hasn't done anything about the fact that Hosty wrote what he heard Oswald say. 

As to the people clamoring for the Darnell and Wegman films, I've seen you write these vague references before about unnamed individuals (calling them mucky-mucks way to cool to post here does you no favors).  But your story chases its tail.  You say these people refused to buy a copy "reported" to be crystal clear, but then stopped clamoring for a copy once the saw a (different?)  copy "they claimed was crystal clear".  Where did the second, or for that matter, the first copy come from?  

Without more, and more coherent, information I don't see any implication.  The people I know who have been clamoring are still clamoring.

[Andrej Stancak]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Andrej:  you don't mention Darnell.  Is there a reason for that?

Roger:

of course, Prayer Man is best featured in Darnell film, however, the relevant sequence of that film started only about 30 seconds after the last shot. The presence of Prayer Man (Lee Oswald?) in the doorway in Darnell film poses no issue regarding the question of whether Lee could watch the motorcade because the motorcade was already gone by that time.

It is my conjecture that Prayer Man who could be Lee Oswald stayed in the doorway for a very short time, basically, he left the doorway to return to the building right after the end of Darnell film sequence. Thus, the total time for which Prayer Man could have stood in the doorway would be less than a minute or so, which also explains why no one had spotted him (except Buell Frazier who had to see that person as the two men stood only about 3 feet apart). As Prayer Man (Lee Oswald?) had left the doorway so early, it was still possible for him to get to the 2nd floor lunchroom via the front stairs to meet the Superintendent Roy Truly and Officer Marrion Baker. Actually, the only possibility for Baker to be able to spot Lee Oswald (via the small door window) entering the lunchroom was that Lee would be just approaching the 2nd floor lunchroom from the hallway (office area). 

The question is why would Lee return to the 2nd floor lunchroom if he had already been there earlier and bought his soda for lunch. I speculate that Lee wanted to know what was going on as he had some kind of foreknowledge. If you analyse Prayer Man's stance and direction of his gaze, he seemed like a person not interested in retrieving as much information from the Dealley Plaza as possible like all other doorway occupants were; he looks like a person contemplating his options, and he looks in direction of Elm/Houston street, the direction in which Lee left the Depository.   

It was entirely possible that Lee was enticed to participate in a "second plot" which aimed to bring him to the Redbird airfield and then to Cuba, with JFK's visit being a welcome distraction allowing him to depart unnoticed. But now, while in the doorway, he realised that JFK has been shot and Lee being a smart guy understood that his "second plot" may actually be connected with the killing  of the President and that he (Lee) would be a potential fall guy. Thus, Lee may have been on his way up to the upper floors to clarify the situation but his plan was scuppered when he saw that both Officer Baker and Roy Truly were already on their way up. Lee was scared to death and he left the building immediately, retrieved his pistol from his room at 1026 North Beckley, and moved to the Texas Theatre where he was supposed to meet the person or persons who would take him to the airfield, still following the "second plot".  

 

 

[Andrej Stancak]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, as to the Darnell and Wiegman films... People keep saying that maybe maybe someday we'll get a better copy and it will prove the issue one way or another. But they are in the dark. A copy reported to be extremely clear was located several years ago in a private collection, and this collector offered it to some of the mucky-mucks who are way too cool to post here. And they refused to buy it from him, or even attempt to raise the money from a go-fund-me or anything. And what's worse, these same people stopped clamoring for access to a better copy of the film, once they saw a copy they claim was crystal clear.

Some evidence is needed for your claims. Who was the collector in posession of better copies, who were the people allegedly seeing the "extremely clear" copy of the film (Darnell or Wiegman?). Else, your story is a hearsay and it should be ignored as such.

[James DiEugenio]

If you have not seen this material by the late Richard Bernabei, you should read it.

Whatever one thinks of the whole PM debate, what this guy did was really some amazing stuff for that early.

I first learned about this from going through Garrison's files.  I mentioned it to Greg Parker and he told me that Bart had it on his site. Reminds us of how much has gone down the memory hole in this case. There were some forgotten explorers.

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

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Some evidence is needed for your claims. Who was the collector in posession of better copies, who were the people allegedly seeing the "extremely clear" copy of the film (Darnell or Wiegman?). Else, your story is a hearsay and it should be ignored as such.

Fine. I was sworn to secrecy about the details, and I don't remember them anyhow, so feel free to believe whatever you want. But rest assured that a clear version of the film has been viewed--by people who claimed it showed Oswald--and that none of them followed up on it in anyway. I'm not inside their heads, but to me it strongly suggests that they knew, deep down, that the film is far from conclusive. 

P.S. I'm surely not the only one who was told of this "screening". Maybe someone else will speak up and explain why--what?--four years have passed, and there hasn't been a peep from those who attended the screening. 

Edited August 6, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Roger Odisio]

Andrej

If Oswald is seen in Darnell and you are correct that it was 30 seconds after the last shot, at least 2 things are true. 1.  It verifies, not contradicts, his statement that he went outside to watch the P Parade.  He was just late.  

2.  And far more important, Oswald could not have been on the 6th floor shooting JFK.  

Your speculations about Oswald's subsequent movement is interesting but it leaves in place the rejection by Garner and the 4th floor women of the WC claim that he was coming *down* the stairs when allegedly seen on the 2nd.  I continue to believe that encounter was another WC fabrication.  Take that out and the rest of your story about the "second plot" still works.

[Greg Doudna]

On 8/5/2022 at 3:04 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Is it possible the 2018 interview with the daughter-in-law of Sarah Stanton, Rosa Daniel, is a family story in which Sarah Stanton told of seeing Oswald on the front steps of the TSBD? Supposedly Sarah Stanton told this story to family members from the time of the assassination. A caveat: Sarah Stanton gave the FBI in March 1964 a signed statement in which she said she never saw Oswald on Nov 22, 1963. But according to the family Sarah Stanton told them a different story, that she had encountered Oswald that day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUM4YlNiuus (audio)

https://jfkinsidejob.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/FURTHERING-THE-LUNCHROOM-EVIDENCE.pdf (transcript)

I thought it was clear from posting Brian Doyle's link and audio above that that was crediting the source from which I quoted, but this was an interview Doyle obtained and deserves credit. The possible interpretation I offered--very speculative--of several quotes of Rosa Daniel in that interview was my own solely based on several of Rosa Daniel's quotes, and differs from Doyle's interpretation reflected in the interview and in the print article of Gilbride of the second link. 

Edited August 7, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Andrej Stancak]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

But rest assured that a clear version of the film has been viewed--by people who claimed it showed Oswald--and that none of them followed up on it in anyway. I'm not inside their heads, but to me it strongly suggests that they knew, deep down, that the film is far from conclusive. 

Sorry, we cannot build the Prayer Man case on a story like this. It is a shame you brought it here. It suggests that people pursuing the hypothesis of Prayer Man being Oswald would not admit they had seen clear evidence to the contrary and chose to suppress it. That would make them fraudsters.

We need to know who Prayer Man was, and if it turns out it was not Lee Oswald, we admit it and move on. For now though, there is enough of hints both from visual analysis of Darnell still and from written records (such as Hosty's notes) to pursue this trail. The hints globally strengthen the case of Prayer Man being Lee Oswald, and there is no single visual cue that would allow to dismiss Oswald as Prayer Man. For instance, if Prayer Man would show light coloured hair, blonde or light grey, we would be able to discard Oswald as a candidate right away because Oswald had dark hair. However, no elimination cue is available, at least I am not aware of it.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Greg Doudna]

15 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Sorry, we cannot build the Prayer Man case on a story like this. It is a shame you brought it here. It suggests that people pursuing the hypothesis of Prayer Man being Oswald would not admit they had seen clear evidence to the contrary and chose to suppress it. That would make them fraudsters.

I support your outstanding work Andrej but this is a slight misrepresentation of Pat Speer here. He didn't suggest they had seen evidence to the contrary. He suggested the clearer photos they saw were still unclear and did not prove anything (so why go to a lot of effort and spend big bucks to accomplish nothing). Not a suggestion they saw falsification.

[Paul Bacon]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

He suggested the clearer photos they saw were still unclear and did not prove anything (so why go to a lot of effort and spend big bucks to accomplish nothing). Not a suggestion they saw falsification.

So why did "they" not make this information available to everyone?  --i.e. "We saw a crystal clear version and we still can't make out Oswald clearly."

Not suggesting anything nefarious, but something is strange about it.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Paul Bacon said:

So why did "they" not make this information available to everyone?  --i.e. "We saw a crystal clear version and we still can't make out Oswald clearly."

Not suggesting anything nefarious, but something is strange about it.

I agree. Don't ask me.

Is it possible for someone to ask Grodon if/what he knows of this? And hope if he does know what this is about he would say?

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Sorry, we cannot build the Prayer Man case on a story like this. It is a shame you brought it here. It suggests that people pursuing the hypothesis of Prayer Man being Oswald would not admit they had seen clear evidence to the contrary and chose to suppress it. That would make them fraudsters.

We need to know who Prayer Man was, and if it turns out it was not Lee Oswald, we admit it and move on. For now though, there is enough of hints both from visual analysis of Darnell still and from written records (such as Hosty's notes) to pursue this trail. The hints globally strengthen the case of Prayer Man being Lee Oswald, and there is no single visual cue that would allow to dismiss Oswald as Prayer Man. For instance, if Prayer Man would show light coloured hair, blonde or light grey, we would be able to discard Oswald as a candidate right away because Oswald had dark hair. However, no elimination cue is available, at least I am not aware of it.

 

 

OK. The story as I was told had a number of prominent researchers being shown a clear copy of the film. Some thought it showed Oswald, some thought it was inconclusive. My point is that if those who thought it showed Oswald really believed it showed Oswald, to a certainty, they would have arranged for the purchase of the film, or found some other way to get it or a similar copy of the film released. They didn't. They all moved on to other things. This suggests to me that a crystal clear copy of the film is inconclusive, at best. 

As to why these men have kept their silence... The owner of this film was trying to make money. He didn't want word to leak out that the film was inconclusive, as it might cut into its future value. So he made at least some of those in attendance sign NDAs in which they promised to not disclose what they had seen. Pretty awful, I know. But it appears to have worked. I know that at least one of those in attendance has read this thread. And has opted to say nothing... 

 

[Andrej Stancak]

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

OK. The story as I was told had a number of prominent researchers being shown a clear copy of the film. Some thought it showed Oswald, some thought it was inconclusive. My point is that if those who thought it showed Oswald really believed it showed Oswald, to a certainty, they would have arranged for the purchase of the film, or found some other way to get it or a similar copy of the film released. They didn't. They all moved on to other things. This suggests to me that a crystal clear copy of the film is inconclusive, at best. 

As to why these men have kept their silence... The owner of this film was trying to make money. He didn't want word to leak out that the film was inconclusive, as it might cut into its future value. So he made at least some of those in attendance sign NDAs in which they promised to not disclose what they had seen. Pretty awful, I know. But it appears to have worked. I know that at least one of those in attendance has read this thread. And has opted to say nothing... 

 

Thanks, Pat, for clarifying it further, however, I am not interested in this story any longer. I do not care who allegedly saw this or that and whether he/she was certain about Prayer Man's identity or not because I want to have a high-resolution copy made from the original film on my hard drive. I would analyse the film in a very detailed manner and for an extensive period of time by myself, I would reconstruct Prayer Man's figure with even more realism than I was able to do, and only then I would draw any conclusions as to whether the footage is conclusive or not, and if there is enough evidence for accepting the hypothesis of Lee Oswald being that unknown person standing at the western wall.

As it stands now, it is possible to say a lot about various features of Prayer Man's figure, however, a high-resolution copy would add important details such as a more precise shape of the dark pattern seen on Prayer Man's shirt which may be a decisive clue in accepting or refuting Oswald as Prayer Man.