PrayerPerson ???

[Roger Odisio]

Good answers,  Sandy.  No one I know who thinks PM might be Oswald does so because of what they see in the currently blurry image.  No matter how many times Pat declares otherwise.  It's *corroboration* to what they conclude other evidence shows about Oswald's whereabouts. 

People can dispute that evidence. For example they can dispute Dorothy Garner's claim that she remained in position on the 4th floor to see the stairs until Truly arrived up there--but saw no Oswald.     

But a frame showing clearly that PM is Oswald can't be refuted.  The WR blows up.

FYI, Greg Parker has talked on ROKC about his interaction with Sean Murphy as the PM thread developed. 

[Roger Odisio]

One other point.  Those who quote Oswald saying he was in the building invariably change the quote by replacing *in* the building with *inside* the building, as Brown has done.  

Some believe Oswald actually was inside the building on the first floor at the time of the shooting, tho he didn't say that.  He briefly popped out to see what was happening once the commotion started.  Many, if not all, of those on the steps in Darnell did not know what had happened right away.  

Point is, the reporter likely was asking Oswald in general terms whether he was "in the building at that time" to determine whether Oswald was at work that day and not somewhere else.  As a preliminary matter.  One of the few questions reporters with little information so far were able to shout out as Oswald was hustled thru the hallway.  He verified that he was at work that day. 

Oswald's answer and the vagueness of the question do not refute his alibi.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Good answers,  Sandy.

 

Thanks Roger.

 

[Henry Frost]

I got a copy of the image posted by Alan Ford on the JFK Assassination Forum as mentioned on Page 1:

It is NOT THE SAME as the image on the Prayer Man Site:

https://postlmg.cc/G99TrN11

Here is a copy of the Darnell film with the TSBD, there may be better ones out there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7p1ntLF--s

[Henry Frost]

I'd assumed the JFKA forum was using the Prayer Man site image.

I extracted the frames showing Prayer Man in an animated loop from the Youtube video I linked:

https://i.imgur.com/MWiySf9.gif

Alan may have cherry picked a frame to support his argument of a scoop neckline blouse. It will be interesting to see if the guys at the Prayer Man site have an explanation.

[Chris Davidson]

On 9/11/2022 at 3:08 PM, Chris Davidson said:

I'll ask James if the filter enhanced version is more indicative of what he remembers seeing a few years back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

James' reply to my inquiry:

[Pat Speer]

I remember reading about a doomsday cult in the fifties that kept changing the date of the end of the world as each date came to pass and the world didn't end.

Now I've seen a cult develop around a blurry photograph, where people insisted the photograph showed a particular person, and then re-interpreted and re-arranged a large volume of evidence to support that it was that person... Only to come face to face with the possibility it wasn't that person... whereby some of the followers took to insisting their belief that person was in that picture had nothing to do with the picture, and rested entirely on the "evidence" that had been re-interpreted and re-arranged to support the ID of the blurry figure in the picture. 

To make an analogy... A man thinks he sees Jesus in a picture taken at Disneyland. He shows this picture to dozens of people, a number of whom say "Holy Smokes! That is Jesus at Disneyland!" The man then moves away. Those left behind proceed to create a whole narrative revolving around Jesus going to Disneyland. Over time, however, some start to have doubts that really is Jesus in the picture that started it all. But some of the followers say "Never mind, I never believed that was Jesus in the picture to begin with...it was the narrative constructed by those who believed that led me to believe." 

 

Yikes...If I am understanding this correctly...some of those believing that Oswald was Prayer Man are now saying they don't necessarily believe that Oswald was Prayer Man, and they mostly believe he was outside on the front steps at the time of the shooting--whether he was photographed there or not, whether he was observed there or not, whether he said he was there or not. 

This whole "believing" thing is weird to me...

[Denis Morissette]

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

If I am understanding this correctly...some of those believing that Oswald was Prayer Man are now saying they don't necessarily believe that Oswald was Prayer Man.

 

[Bill Brown]

12 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

One other point.  Those who quote Oswald saying he was in the building invariably change the quote by replacing *in* the building with *inside* the building, as Brown has done.  

Some believe Oswald actually was inside the building on the first floor at the time of the shooting, tho he didn't say that.  He briefly popped out to see what was happening once the commotion started.  Many, if not all, of those on the steps in Darnell did not know what had happened right away.  

Point is, the reporter likely was asking Oswald in general terms whether he was "in the building at that time" to determine whether Oswald was at work that day and not somewhere else.  As a preliminary matter.  One of the few questions reporters with little information so far were able to shout out as Oswald was hustled thru the hallway.  He verified that he was at work that day. 

Oswald's answer and the vagueness of the question do not refute his alibi.

 

 

My quote is accurate.  I didn't change the quote at all.

 

[Tony Krome]

On 9/13/2022 at 3:15 AM, Bill Brown said:

On film....

Reporter:  "Were you in the building at the time?"

Oswald:  "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."

Oswald admits, on film, that he was inside the building at the time of the shooting.  Therefore, Oswald was not out by the front steps.  If Oswald was not out by the front steps, then he is not prayer man.  If Oswald is not prayer man, then who cares who prayer man was.

 

That reporter you quoted asked another question immediately before. Do you believe Oswald responded to that question?

[Roger Odisio]

Right, Bill.  You quoted Oswald accurately.  It's your interpretation of what the statement meant that is inaccurate.  By his statement that he was *in* the building at the time, you say Oswald admits he was *inside* the building and therefore could not have been outside on the front steps.

Here it is to save you from looking it up:

On film....

Reporter:  "Were you in the building at the time?"

Oswald:  "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."

Oswald admits, on film, that he was inside the building at the time of the shooting.  Therefore, Oswald was not out by the front steps

[Pat Speer]

54 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Right, Bill.  You quoted Oswald accurately.  It's your interpretation of what the statement meant that is inaccurate.  By his statement that he was *in* the building at the time, you say Oswald admits he was *inside* the building and therefore could not have been outside on the front steps.

Here it is to save you from looking it up:

On film....

Reporter:  "Were you in the building at the time?"

Oswald:  "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."

Oswald admits, on film, that he was inside the building at the time of the shooting.  Therefore, Oswald was not out by the front steps

Now, I'm even more confused. Isn't that what Bill was saying? 

[Chris Davidson]

Conversation refresher:

First Part : https://vimeo.com/749455547

Second Part: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SA973tSThpgZ2xuqYfNHmfNlEyBjOI1r/view?usp=sharing

Edited September 14, 2022 by Chris Davidson

[Andrej Stancak]

14 hours ago, Henry Frost said:

I got a copy of the image posted by Alan Ford on the JFK Assassination Forum as mentioned on Page 1:

It is NOT THE SAME as the image on the Prayer Man Site:

https://postlmg.cc/G99TrN11

Here is a copy of the Darnell film with the TSBD, there may be better ones out there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7p1ntLF--s

But both the one shown here and the one linked were tampered with. The quality of both images is much worse than of the ones discussed from 2013. 

 

 

[Andrej Stancak]

The latest arrivals of processed versions of Darnell, advertised as original stills, look so similar to actions of the intelligence/media in other facets of the case. To tackle a promising trail, one or more alternative stories to the true one are made up, and the researchers themselves then bury both the valid and invalid piece of evidence.  

 

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Andrej Stancak