PrayerPerson ???

[Ron Ege]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Ron,

Oswald had no idea that he was was being set up by the CIA. Recall that it wasn't even him in Mexico City seemingly plotting with the Cubans and Russians.

As you probably know, everything in the CIA is compartmentalized, and each agent or asset is told only what they "need to know" to accomplish their jobs. Oswald had no need to know about the assassination plot that he was involved in, so he wasn't told.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Great summation 🤠

Agree.

Absolutely aware of the compartmentalization.

Just wasn't sure if Sandy ruled out any Oswald foreknowledge of the plot.

So, assuming he was set up for that, isn't it also possible that the alleged Walker shooting was also contrived, again, as part of the "Oswald Myth".  Yes, I know that too remains contentious. 

It's one thing to follow orders, masquerading as a FPCC "official" so as to gain intelligence about that organization - but to me, considering Oswald's history relative to his personality/behavior/demeanor, to leap from that to - "Sure boss.  I'll go get rid of that pesky-wing ex general for ya".  Well, . . . .  

Since Ruby was so "helpful" during the press conference, regarding the organization's correct name, maybe he talked Ozzie into it?  🤪

LHO seemed smart enough to realize that he'd be taking the chance that he himself would be shot, during or after the attempt, or in the least, be arrested and tried for attempted murder.

So much then, for watching his daughters grow up.

Setting him up for the JFK Assassination surely was more complicated than implicating him for the Walker attempt.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

On 9/21/2022 at 4:40 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

"We know..." is a figure of speech used when giving a lecture or tutorial when one refers to something already elucidated. "We know from..." is used when a conclusion can readily be drawn from what is about to be said.

 

17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Okay.

Because of the evidence, "we know" that Lee Oswald (alone) is a cop-killer and a political assassin.

 

Well yeah, except you first need to lay out the evidence that shows that, like I did when I used the phrase "we know."

Keep trying.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Ron Ege said:

So, assuming [Oswald] was set up for [the assassination plot], isn't it also possible that the alleged Walker shooting was also contrived, again, as part of the "Oswald Myth".

 

Ron,

I'm not sure precisely when the CIA assassination plot ended and the Johnson Administration cover-up began. But the Walker accusation presumably came quite a while after 11/22/63. Which seems to suggest that the cover-up artists developed that piece of fakery after the assassination in an effort to paint Oswald as a violent man.

But now that you mention it and I've put more thought into it, I'm less sure of that. It seems reasonable that the assassination plotters could have had someone taking a pot-shot at Walker for the same purpose -- to paint him as a violent man.

But one thing I do believe for sure is that Oswald didn't take that shot. There is no reason to believe he was a violent man. (I've shown elsewhere that he wasn't a wife beater.)

 

[Ron Ege]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Ron,

I'm not sure precisely when the CIA assassination plot ended and the Johnson Administration cover-up began. But the Walker accusation presumably came quite a while after 11/22/63. Which seems to suggest that the cover-up artists developed that piece of fakery after the assassination in an effort to paint Oswald as a violent man.

But now that you mention it and I've put more thought into it, I'm less sure of that. It seems reasonable that the assassination plotters could have had someone taking a pot-shot at Walker for the same purpose -- to paint him as a violent man.

But one thing I do believe for sure is that Oswald didn't take that shot. There is no reason to believe he was a violent man. (I've shown elsewhere that he wasn't a wife beater.)

 

Sandy,

Thank you.  I concur with all.

If I remember, some of LHO's fellow marines referred to him as "Oswaldskovitch" because of his intense display of support for all things Russia and Marxism/communism.

By the by, good luck with that "act" - especially as a U. S. Marine with a secret security clearance and yet continuing on active duty.

Someone was "winking and nodding".  Otherwise, he would've been "out on his ear" from the Corp.

My service, the USAF wouldn't have tolerated it - and for sure - nor would the USMC.

Your apt take that he was not a violent man fits his other nickname "Ozzie Rabbit".  A John Wayne stereotype marine, Oswakd was not.

Maybe you've run across one, but I'm stilling looking for that first "violent" rabbit. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Ron Ege said:

Your apt take that he was not a violent man fits his other nickname "Ozzie Rabbit".  A John Wayne stereotype marine, Oswald was not.

 

Apparently Ozzie Rabbit was a nickname for the Disney cartoon character Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. Which I'd never heard of before. And a prototype for the later Mickie Mouse.

 

[Paul Cummings]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Apparently Ozzie Rabbit was a nickname for the Disney cartoon character Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. Which I'd never heard of before. And a prototype for the later Mickie Mouse.

 

Did you know part of the deal allowing Al Michaels to leave Disney/ESPN for NBC was for them to get back the rights of Oswald the Rabbit? 

[Sandy Larsen]

44 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Did you know part of the deal allowing Al Michaels to leave Disney/ESPN for NBC was for them to get back the rights of Oswald the Rabbit? 

 

Amazing!

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

the simplest explanation of all is printed in the Warren Report. Why not just settle for that?

Because, although it may be the simplest explanation, it isn't the simplest plausible explanation. Plausibility is essential. That's why poorly supported far-fetched explanations should be dismissed.

Quote

Of course people were directed to make sure Oswald got a job there. Maybe you don't see it being necessary, but the plotters obviously did. Because he WAS there.

Nice example of begging the question there. It reminds me of Wesley Liebeler's remark in his memo to the Warren Commission that "the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so".

As I explained, the fact that Oswald got a job in the book depository does not mean that this was necessarily part of the plan; it might have been a coincidence that was seized on by the planners. As I also explained, if it was actually part of the plan, this part of the plan only required the co-operation of one insider at the book depository, and that insider need not have known why he was being asked to employ Oswald. (The insider would have been Roy Truly, of course.)

Again, you don't need a huge, complex and implausible operation to explain Oswald's presence at the TSBD.

Quote

Other evidence points to the TSBD being a CIA front. For example, it appears that there were multiple shooters there.

I'm not sure there's any good evidence for multiple shooters in the book depository. There's probably stronger evidence for no shooters in the book depository (although I'm not convinced of that, either).

Quote

Wow, you really aren't interested in determining the facts, are you.

I'm afraid I am. The invention of overly complicated scenarios is not a good way to determine the facts.

Quote

Some of us want to know more than the fact that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Some of us want to know the details.

And the way to do that is not to construct elaborate theories to account for every trivial fact and anomaly. If you assume that everything that happened must have been part of a carefully thought-out plot, you're almost certainly going to arrive at an incorrect model of the conspiracy.

Quote

If our goal is to convince open-minded members of the public that a conspiracy was behind the killing of Kennedy, then were finished. Researchers long ago have already done that.

Many open-minded members of the public have indeed been convinced, but many others haven't.

The public has been told by the media that their only choice is between the lone-nut explanation and far-fetched, quasi-paranoid conspiracy theories. When open-minded people decide to look into the matter for themselves, and they find that the choice is indeed between the lone-nut explanation and far-fetched, quasi-paranoid conspiracy theories, which option are they likely to choose?

And how sympathetic will they be to getting the case reopened and a proper investigation performed? Without pressure from the general public, a serious official investigation isn't likely to happen.

[Chris Davidson]

On 9/22/2022 at 2:48 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Andrej,

I used the real photos to show the mismatch in forehead hairline that blurry PrayerPerson possesses vs Oswald.

The same comparison(but no mismatch) can be made in regards to blurry BWF.

Otherwise, there is no way to know where the top of one's head ends and the chin of another begins.

If the hairline over the forehead is a mismatch, this affects the true height of the individual.

 

 

 

 

Cudos to the wife.

She is 5'10" tall without shoes.

She is 5'10 1/2+ with those shoes on.

Standing on the mini tailgate of a 99' Landcruiser which is 34" above the ground.

Shot using an Iphone12 with the 26mm wide angle setting.

Approx 67ft away.

76ft was preferred, but there was a parked car in the way.

 

 

 

[Andrej Stancak]

8 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Cudos to the wife.

She is 5'10" tall without shoes.

She is 5'10 1/2+ with those shoes on.

Standing on the mini tailgate of a 99' Landcruiser which is 34" above the ground.

Shot using an Iphone12 with the 26mm wide angle setting.

Approx 67ft away.

76ft was preferred, but there was a parked car in the way.

 

 

 

I guess we can agree that Prayer Man could not be a short person around 5'3'' (with shoes on) standing on the top landing?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/24/2022 at 3:16 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As I explained, the fact that Oswald got a job in the book depository does not mean that this was necessarily part of the plan; it might have been a coincidence that was seized on by the planners.

 

Um, sure Jeremy, whatever you say. After months of the CIA plotters painting Oswald as a communist and Castro sympathizer, and faking the Mexico City trip to paint him as conspiring with Cubans and Russian to kill JFK, .....

After all that, according to you the CIA plotters would leave it up to mere chance for Oswald to get a job at just the right place and time to shoot at Kennedy.

(You apparently have no idea how ridiculous your idea is. Especially given that the CIA had control over Oswald.)

[Chris Davidson]

4 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I guess we can agree that Prayer Man could not be a short person around 5'3'' (with shoes on) standing on the top landing?

Not necessarily. imo

The BWF/Oswald photos set a short person at 5'3 1/2" and the taller at 5"10 3/4"

 

[Andrej Stancak]

58 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Not necessarily. imo

The BWF/Oswald photos set a short person at 5'3 1/2" and the taller at 5"10 3/4"

 

Chris:

does you analysis take into account that the short person (5' 2 1/2'' - 5' 3'') would have his/her arms too high compared to Prayer Man in Darnell? And did you take into account that only one of the two persons (short and tall) would have his right elbow in a correct distance from the red column seen on the western wall? 

In my analysis, I assume that Frazier did not stand completely straight in Darnell still - he had his abdomen slightly forward exagerating the latural lordosis, and he compensated it by bending his head slightly forward. It is for that reason that my the height of the plane crossing the top of Frazier's head is at 6' rather than 6' 1/2'' or 6' 1''. I measure the apparent body height as manifested in Darnell, not a value that has been reported.

 

 

[Andrej Stancak]

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Not necessarily. imo

The BWF/Oswald photos set a short person at 5'3 1/2" and the taller at 5"10 3/4"

 

Chris:

I took the liberty of using your lovely wife's photograph to explain my point. A person 5'10'' would have his/her arm noticeable higher than a person 5' 3'' but standing on a 7'' elevated platform. The tops of both heads would be on the same plane, yet their arms would not. Therefore, only one of the two would fit Prayer Man. Which one of the two body heights would you think allows a good fit with Prayer Man's figure?

(I exceeded my image quota, and using an URL link truncates the image vertically. I hope my point is clear though).

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Chris Davidson]

Andrej,

Are you trying to convince me that there are individuals who don't possess longer torso/shorter leg ratios?

For instance, what does your research show BWF 6ft body ratio to be?

Mr. BALL - How tall are you?
Mr. FRAZIER - I am 6-foot, a little bit over 6-foot.
Mr. BALL - Do you know what your arm length is?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - We can probably measure it before you leave.

I assume this is without shoes on, but who knows for sure.