Jump to content
The Education Forum

PrayerPerson ???


Chris Davidson

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Like the Hosty interrogation note stating that Oswald said he was outside watching the P. Parade.

Your desperation is showing. Why do you keep saying the Hosty notes written after his interview with Oswald said something it did not say?

 

Malcolm-Archive-Feb-2018444-Hosty.jpg?re

 

Transcription:

O[swald] stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get coca cola to eat with lunch and returned to the 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P. Parade

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

27 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Malcolm-Archive-Feb-2018444-Hosty.jpg?re

 

Transcription:

O[swald] stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get coca cola to eat with lunch and returned to the 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P. Parade

 

Here's what you wrote: "Like the Hosty interrogation note stating that Oswald said he was outside watching the P. Parade."

It was a subsequently-written draft of a report and not a contemporaneous note. But that's not the main issue. The main issue is that you assume the line about going outside to mean Oswald said he was outside when the shots rang out...when this is not what was said in the draft, and not what anyone else present in the interview recalled Oswald saying. 

Sometimes the best way to understand an issue is to turn the tables... Say a man is accused of stabbing to death a policeman who'd been walking past his workplace during the lunch hour. After his arrest the media asks him where he was at the time of the stabbing, and he admits he was at work, and by himself, but says he didn't knife the victim. He is then released. Years later, however, a draft of an FBI report on his initial interview is made public, and this reveals that he went to lunch, and then went outside. Now, it doesn't say when he went outside, but a strapping young DA claims this draft represents new evidence, and proves the former suspect was outside when the policeman was stabbed to death. 

Only it doesn't, does it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The main issue is that you assume the line about going outside to mean Oswald said he was outside when the shots rang out...

 

I didn't say anything about when Oswald was outside (according to him). But clearly he was outside right around the time the motorcade went by.

The importance of the note is that it shows that the FBI covered up Oswald's alibi. Which is what Bart Kamp and I both had already contended based on other evidence. (And no, not Prayer Man.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Thank you for your fine response Roger, however I am a bit lost by your logic. 

1) It is absolutely undeniable that the curtain rods story was a major part of the LHO cover-up from day 1. Don't forget that for a much of a farce as the Warren Commission was, it did try to place LHO on the 6th floor (primarily with Brennan and fingerprinting). You are correct that it did not conclude that he fired the rifle (rejected the paraffin tests), but it did conclude just about everything else. From Chapter 4: "On the basis of the evidence reviewed in this chapter, the Commission has found that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) owned and possessed the rifle used to kill President Kennedy and wound Governor Connally, (2) brought this rifle into the Depository Building on the morning of the assassination, (3) was present, at the time of the assassination, at the window from which the shots were fired.....and (8) possessed the capability with a rifle which would have enabled him to commit the assassination. On the basis of these findings the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of President Kennedy."

 

What's the point of this? I disagree with the WC conclusions, as most anyone should. But the narrative being sold to the public is exceedingly clear: Oswald brought his own rifle to the TSBD and fired it, killing JFK. You absolutely cannot have this fable without the curtain rods story. Which is also why it was plastered all over prime time television, including the CBS Warren Report special. Saying that it was not a part of the cover-up is at best mistaken, it is flatly contradicted by the historical record. 

2) Is proclaiming Oswald's innocence "nibbling around the edges"? I implore you to re-read your own words above. Where is the logic that Frazier has all but exonerated Oswald himself but still chooses not to say that he is on the steps? Rather than come up with convoluted explanations to explain Frazier's behavior, Occam's Razer implores us to accept that he simply didn't see Oswald on the steps. Another poster, not yourself, even posited in this very thread that Frazier might have PTSD as an explanation for his behavior. In that case I would diagnose the entire Warren Commission with mass hysteria. Your post, though not going nearly to this extreme and in general being more levelheaded, contains similar argumentation in trying to explain Frazier's behavior. 

3) On the possibility that Oswald was only on the steps for a very short time, I suppose it is possible, but Frazier seems to be looking right at Prayer person, which to me nearly precludes the possibility of misidentifcation. I have little to add to what other posters such as Pat Speer added above. Oswald's statement that he was in the building at the time of the assassination seems clear as day. 

I retain the basic argument that I initially presented, Frazier's statements and actions seem to make this whole conversion a moot point. 

I didn't say that the story that Oswald brought a rifle to work that morning wasn't an important part, *to them*, of the WC's framing of Oswald.  So was the magic bullet, the 2nd floor lunch room encounter, and many other parts of the story made up for the framing.

I said unless they could place Oswald at the window during the shooting that story shouldn't matter to anyone looking past the WC lies to try understand what happened.  Here's the logic, Miles.  First question:  was Oswald at the window on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.  If the answer is yes, then all parts of the WC story are relevant, including the rifle.  If the answer is no, he didn't do it as claimed in the WR!

They couldn't put Oswald there.   Brennan and fingerprinting?  Look into them further, please.   And while you're at it consider the stories of the 4 women who were at a window on the 4th floor when the shots were fired.  Particularly Dorothy Garner, their supervisor, who remained on that floor until Truly arrived from below.  No Oswald came down those stairs.  (see The Girl on the Stairs, by Barry Ernest or watch Stone's doc where Ernest's story is part of the conclusion that Oswald was not on the 6th floor).  Or Ochus Campbell who originally said he went quickly back into the building after the shots and saw Oswald on the first floor.  He changed that statement when it became clear he would blow up the whole Oswald story.  

Did Frazier see Oswald on the steps?  Probably I think.  But there are plausible reasons to explain how he could have missed him despite the proximity. More to the point, to put such great weight on Frazier's "honesty" when he says he doesn't know who Prayerman is, is to ignore the context of the situation.  Frazier was a 19 year old kid who had been threatened with being charged as an accomplice to Oswald if he didn't go along with their story.  Intimidation and repression was everywhere.  Who else stepped out of line to challenge the official lies?  Roger Craig?  Later Dorothy Kilgallen?  You get the idea.

Point is, unless you believe Oswald was on the 6th floor, to ignore any evidence about where he was instead, based on a claim of Frazier's honesty as you have advanced as if that is dispositive, is a bad idea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

I didn't say that the story that Oswald brought a rifle to work that morning wasn't an important part, *to them*, of the WC's framing of Oswald.  So was the magic bullet, the 2nd floor lunch room encounter, and many other parts of the story made up for the framing.

I said unless they could place Oswald at the window during the shooting that story shouldn't matter to anyone looking past the WC lies to try understand what happened.  Here's the logic, Miles.  First question:  was Oswald at the window on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.  If the answer is yes, then all parts of the WC story are relevant, including the rifle.  If the answer is no, he didn't do it as claimed in the WR!

They couldn't put Oswald there.   Brennan and fingerprinting?  Look into them further, please.   And while you're at it consider the stories of the 4 women who were at a window on the 4th floor when the shots were fired.  Particularly Dorothy Garner, their supervisor, who remained on that floor until Truly arrived from below.  No Oswald came down those stairs.  (see The Girl on the Stairs, by Barry Ernest or watch Stone's doc where Ernest's story is part of the conclusion that Oswald was not on the 6th floor).  Or Ochus Campbell who originally said he went quickly back into the building after the shots and saw Oswald on the first floor.  He changed that statement when it became clear he would blow up the whole Oswald story.  

Did Frazier see Oswald on the steps?  Probably I think.  But there are plausible reasons to explain how he could have missed him despite the proximity. More to the point, to put such great weight on Frazier's "honesty" when he says he doesn't know who Prayerman is, is to ignore the context of the situation.  Frazier was a 19 year old kid who had been threatened with being charged as an accomplice to Oswald if he didn't go along with their story.  Intimidation and repression was everywhere.  Who else stepped out of line to challenge the official lies?  Roger Craig?  Later Dorothy Kilgallen?  You get the idea.

Point is, unless you believe Oswald was on the 6th floor, to ignore any evidence about where he was instead, based on a claim of Frazier's honesty as you have advanced as if that is dispositive, is a bad idea.  

To be clear, Joe Ball and David Belin were tasked with putting Oswald on the sixth floor, and they bent over backwards to sell not only that Oswald was the shooter, but that he 1) brought the rifle to work in a bag that morning, 2) was near the sixth floor corner shortly before the shooting, 3) never came down for lunch, and 4) ran downstairs right after the shooting.

It was their task, then, to make problems revolving around these points disappear. But they basically failed and then lied about it afterwards. Despite their best efforts, the shadows of the truth crept into the record. Frazier and his sister cast great doubt about the veracity of point 1. This was a huge problem.  So Ball and Belin said they were mistaken. Charles Givens popped up and helped them with point 2. But once again, this was a problem. Given's previous statements were at odds with the testimony suborned by Belin, and there were records in the commission's files indicating Givens would lie for money. Oops. As far as point 3, well, Shelley and Piper were clear in their testimony indicating Oswald came down for lunch. So once again Ball and Belin said they were mistaken--the commission added into their report that Piper was easily confused or some such thing, even though there was no evidence for this in his testimony and he had been consistent from the beginning that he'd seen Oswald in the break room during around noon, when Oswald said he'd come down for lunch. And then there's point 4, where Baker and Truly said Oswald showed no signs of having run down the stairs, and where Ball and Belin twisted the words of Shelley and Lovelady to indicate Vickie Adams was wrong about running down the stairs right after the shooting, but revealed their hand by refusing to interview Styles and Garner, who could back up Adams' claim. 

In short, then, the cover-up engineered by Ball and Belin worked only temporarily because the official record--what was put into the record both before and during the reign of the Almighty WC, proved that they'd spun the evidence to sell the public a story. There is no such pattern regarding the possibility Oswald was Prayer Man. No one was made out to be an idiot to hide that they said they saw him, because no one EVER said they saw him. And Oswald himself not only failed to say he was outside at the time of the shooting, but indicated he was in fact inside the building. There's no there there.

Outside a blurry image, which many believe could be a woman. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

To be clear, Joe Ball and David Belin were tasked with putting Oswald on the sixth floor, and they bent over backwards to sell not only that Oswald was the shooter, but that he 1) brought the rifle to work in a bag that morning, 2) was near the sixth floor corner shortly before the shooting, 3) never came down for lunch, and 4) ran downstairs right after the shooting.

It was their task, then, to make problems revolving around these points disappear. But they basically failed and then lied about it afterwards. Despite their best efforts, the shadows of the truth crept into the record. Frazier and his sister cast great doubt about the veracity of point 1. This was a huge problem.  So Ball and Belin said they were mistaken. Charles Givens popped up and helped them with point 2. But once again, this was a problem. Given's previous statements were at odds with the testimony suborned by Belin, and there were records in the commission's files indicating Givens would lie for money. Oops. As far as point 3, well, Shelley and Piper were clear in their testimony indicating Oswald came down for lunch. So once again Ball and Belin said they were mistaken--the commission added into their report that Piper was easily confused or some such thing, even though there was no evidence for this in his testimony and he had been consistent from the beginning that he'd seen Oswald in the break room during around noon, when Oswald said he'd come down for lunch. And then there's point 4, where Baker and Truly said Oswald showed no signs of having run down the stairs, and where Ball and Belin twisted the words of Shelley and Lovelady to indicate Vickie Adams was wrong about running down the stairs right after the shooting, but revealed their hand by refusing to interview Styles and Garner, who could back up Adams' claim. 

In short, then, the cover-up engineered by Ball and Belin worked only temporarily because the official record--what was put into the record both before and during the reign of the Almighty WC, proved that they'd spun the evidence to sell the public a story.

RO:  Fine job up to here, Pat.  The framers knew that Oswald didn't do it, that they had no case.  At one point Salandria surmised the WR was in fact *designed* to fall apart after a while.  The message to decision makers in Washington was, yes, we did it.  We're in charge and there is nothing you can do about it.  It was a message made explicit to House investigators when they sought answers from the CIA in the 70s:  you're from Congress.  You'll be gone in a few years, But we'll still be here.  

 

There is no such pattern regarding the possibility Oswald was Prayer Man. No one was made out to be an idiot to hide that they said they saw him, because no one EVER said they saw him.

RO:  Besides Frazier most if not all people on the steps probably did not see him, with their back to him, the chaos that quickly ensued, and the short time he was out there.  Except Ochus Campbell originally said he went quickly back into the building and saw Oswald on the first floor.  Until it became clear that would destroy the story they were coming up with to frame Oswald.

And Oswald himself not only failed to say he was outside at the time of the shooting, but indicated he was in fact inside the building. There's no there there.

RO: No matter how many times this has been shown to be false you just keep repeating it.  Oswalt said he "went outside to watch the P parade"; that means at the time of the shooting.  The shooting happened as the motorcade passed the building.  On the other hand you claim the vague phrase were you in the building "at that time" precisely means at the time of the shooting, rather than anything else.  The contortions necessary to believe both things is pretty amazing I must admit. 

You've said you don't think Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.  Yet you have incessantly claimed he wasn't on the steps either.  The energy with which you have pursued this claim seems curious to me.  If he wasn't on the 6th floor, he didn't do it.  If he is Prayerman his innocence is proven and we must pursue the question of who did do it.  That is the most devastating blow to the WR, but not the only one.  And it would vindicate your original judgement that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor.  

I can understand as a purely factual matter pursuing the claim that Oswald was not on the steps at any time approximating the shooting, despite clear evidence that he was, and said he was.  But so far you haven't come close to making that case and I keep wondering why you keep trying.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

On the other hand you claim the vague phrase were you in the building "at that time" precisely means at the time of the shooting, rather than anything else.  

I'm interested in hearing what you think the reporter meant when he said, "at that time" if he wasn't talking about the time of the shooting. At what time ? Were the reporters gathered at police headquarters because of an epileptic seizure ? Or was it because Bonnie Ray Williams had eaten his chicken lunch on the sixth floor ?

Please, tell us what that "anything else" was.

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2022 at 2:09 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

More sweeping, definitive pronouncements from Sandy Larsen that he cannot possibly back up with any actual facts, but rather merely his opinion on what he insists Oswald "clearly" and "obviously" "didn't understand."

 

Well said.  I was thinking the same thing.  Does Larsen do this sort of thing a lot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2022 at 2:19 PM, Miles Massicotte said:

Linnie Mae Randle also saw Oswald with a "brown, heavy bag" that morning, so yes I believe that Oswald had a package of some kind. 

And she (Randle) said it was three feet long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2022 at 3:01 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Because Frazier wasn't asked to lie about the bag. He was asked to lie about Oswald being on the TSBD steps.

Other things might fall through the cover-up cracks. But there could be no witnesses saying that they saw Oswald out on the steps.

 

 

You're having it both ways.

 

Frazier, to prevent WW3, agrees to lie, saying Oswald was not out on the steps even though he (Oswald) was.

 

Frazier, apparently not worried about starting WW3, didn't lie about the length of the bag even though he very easily could and no one would be the wiser.

 

 Is this really your stance here?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2022 at 4:21 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Speaking of Frazier and his being consistent with his story, I recall a topic being brought up on the forum in the last two or three years where he DID make a change, fairly recently I believe. As I recall, he said that he saw Oswald walking east on Elm Street shortly after the shooting. And I believe he said that he had come out the back side of the building.

Does anybody recall that?

Does anybody know what his original story was? About Oswald leaving the building?

 

 

On the day of the assassination, Frazier stated that he didn't see Oswald after 11 AM.

 

Then, roughly forty years later, in an interview with Gary Mack, Frazier tells Mack that he saw Oswald after the assassination crossing Houston Street.  Mack (knowing what Frazier said on 11/22/63) is visually taken aback by this.

 

Edited by Bill Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

I'm interested in hearing what you think the reporter meant when he said, "at that time" if he wasn't talking about the time of the shooting. At what time ? Were the reporters gathered at police headquarters because of an epileptic seizure ? Or was it because Bonnie Ray Williams had eaten his chicken lunch on the sixth floor ?

Please, tell us what that "anything else" was.

I've already done that, Gil, but I can understand you might have missed it.  Reporters early on  shouting questions in the hallway in the brief time allowed were likely gathering basic information on the story.  The phrase at that time could have plausibly be simply asking whether Oswald came to work that day.  Were you at work at the time the motorcade was due or did you take the day off and go to the movies, where you was arrested?  There was no followup to clarify what the reporter was asking.

It's also plausible that he was in the building on the first floor and went outside to see what the commotion was about in time to be caught on film by Darnell.  He was in the building *and* he went outside.  There was no time or opportunity to add the second part amid the commotion and multiple questions being thrown at him.  He merely affirmed the first part.

In any case it's ludicrous to claim his brief response in the hallway proves he wasn't outside at any time during the commotion and therefore couldn't be Prayerman

You will agree, won't you that went outside to watch the P parade is a more explicit statement of his whereabouts during the murder than his answer to where he was "at that time".  We, of course, haven't been provided with the interrogation question Oswald was asked to which he gave his answer, but I suspect that would make clear that his answer in the formal questioning was his alibi.  Not his response to a vague question shouted at him by reporters as he is being shoved through the hallway.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to make some sense out of this thread. It started with Chris posting Willis #21 slide with two ladies, perhaps suggesting that one of them could be "Prayer Person", three question marks. There was also a hint from the past that another woman, Sarah Stanton, could be Prayer Man. I hope all agree that each of these ladies has been rightfully discarded as Prayer Man. The pink lady in Willis 21# was too short and her light-coloured dress would not match Prayer Man clothes. The lady behind the glass door would not match Prayer Man owing to her rich hair creating a roof and a specific hairline so much different to Prayer Man. Sarah Stanton had rich, light-coloured hair and her hair exclude her as a candidate right away. Thanks to everyone who helped in bringing on her photograph which eventually was the decisive piece of data to exclude Sarah Stanton as Prayer Man. There are good hints and witness testimonies allowing to estimate Sarah Stanton's location quite precisely given limited resolution of the photographs, especially in areas at the back of the top landing.

crossed_candidates.thumb.jpg.00a4bb810a532ebba37f4c8699a37f17.jpg

Then there were two futher "versions" of Darnell still which were also brought here from another forum, with a comment and a drawing by Mr. Hackerott pointing to very feminine features of Prayer Man, making a case for Prayer Man being actually a Woman. These pictures have never been discussed previously on our Forum, causing me to think what was going on.

It appears that the "versions" of the famous Darnell still we all used to view and analyse are actually different frames of Darnell film. In the left-hand panel, cropped views of three pictures are shown, labelled "jfkassfor.", "red-arrow", and "2013", with two former pictures being those brought here from jfkassassinationforum.com, and the latter being the best version of Darnell still available from the very start of Prayer Man saga. The right-hand panel shows the corresponding frames identified in Darnell film (the version of Darnell film posted on this forum by Robin Unger in "Oswald leaving the TSBD?" thread about in 2016). Clearly, we deal with three different frames of Darnell film, not with different versions of the same frame. The two frames brought here recently have never been analysed because of motion blur distortions.

darnell_3frames.jpg?ssl=1

 

To show Prayer Man in all three frames, in Darnell original film and in their parallel versions, the next figure shows  cropped views of Prayer Man in six variants. The lower row are the frames from original Darnell film - I have resized them and added a bit of light equally to each of three frames for better visibility. It is possible to appreciate the heavy distortions in Prayer Man's figure in frames "jfkassfor." and "red-arrow", and absence of this distortion in "2013".  The top panel shows Prayer Man in the pictures that have been brought here from the other forum. Heavy photograpic manipulations were needed to get from original film frames to "jfkassfor." and "red-arrow", with "red-arrow" being processed much more than "red-arrow". Please note Prayer Man's thin right forearm in "red-arrow"; this were the dues needed to be paid to reach the figure we see. 

pm_3frames.thumb.jpg.922d8b8e793f47e2625bd16eb01a5dd1.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...