PrayerPerson ???

[Andrej Stancak]

Here are a few views of the Depository doorway in Darnell illustrating a solution for locations of doorway occupants. The top picture is the the original Darnell still with the 3D model of the doorway overlaid onto the original picture, and the bottom pictures are different views of Darnell doorway. Mrs Stanton in Darnell still stood just in front of glass door, to the left of Buell Wesley Frazier, and her light-coloured hair, modelled according to the family photograph, matches the original picture accurately. It is the overlay of the 3D model and the original picture which allows to validate a particular solution. It is a very punishing process because any mismatch due to a wrong model solution is instantly visible. It takes many iterations (adjustments of body heigt, orientation, limbs positions) to obtain an overlay that sits well.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

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.

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.

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

Willis was also an indication that the only people in and around the TSBD steps on film/video that wore short sleeves and no collars were all women.

There has never been and never will be a reference to Sarah Stanton by me, claiming she was Prayer Person.

In fact, here's another woman added, fitting that dress combination.

The men all were either wearing dress suits or shirts with collars, long sleeved shirts/sweaters. Hard to tell with BWF.

Prayer Person is wearing a short sleeve garment.

If it's Oswald, what/whose shirt was he wearing?

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

Oh my. You've got it 100% backwards.

A draft of a report says that Oswald said he went outside to see the P. Parade. This could have been before it arrived (perhaps he came back inside since it was running late), or after the shooting. And yet you take it to mean he said he was outside on the front steps at the time of the shooting. 

Only he was asked where he was at the time, on camera, and he said he was in the building. You then counter this by claiming "at the time" is vague, and he probably meant that he was at work that day. 

This is bizarre. There is a vague account of what Oswald said--second hand information at best--to which you add detail to make it sound like it was his alibi... While at the same time there are his actual words which stand in opposition to what you assume was his alibi--that you choose to reject because maybe just maybe Oswald thought he was asked if he'd been at work that day, and not where he was at the time of the shooting. 

You're not following the evidence. You're twisting the evidence in a knot to support the ID of Oswald in a blurry photo...whether you realize it or not (knot?). 

[Roger Odisio]

57 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Oswald was probably not at the 6th floor during the shooting. This isn't a question of the credibility of the WR, which is bunk. We agree on that, and let's not get hung up on it. The issue here is Frazier's credibility, and whether the curtain rods story is important to assessing it. It is.

RO: No, if Prayerman is Oswald, it doesn't matter whether Frazier saw him or says he saw him.  If PM isn't Oswald it also doesn't matter what Frazier says he saw or didn't see.  That's why I initially was taken aback by your wish to ignore PM based on an assertion about Frazier.

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Brennan is a bad witness and the fingerprint evidence is dubious. I'm not trying to argue for the validity of the WR, just the opposite. Pat Speer above highlights the spin job that Belin and Ball did (and while we are on the topic his chapter on the curtain rod story is excellent). I'm really trying to make a separate case: that if controlling witness statements and the narrative around the assassination was important at that time, then not controlling what BWF said about Oswald's package but controlling what he said about the steps, if such an intervention actually occurred, doesn't make sense.

Frazier's credibility is not tied to Oswald's presence on the 6th floor, and this should be apparent from how far the argument has had to bend backwards to get to this point.

RO:  Of course they are tied, in your mind.  You've said you won't look into whether Prayerman is Oswald because if so Frazier would have seen him and he says he doesn't know who the figure is.

What is relevant is, if Frazier was the victim of intimidation and repression, as you insinuate, then I am still seeking a rational explanation for why they would not suppress the most public part of his story. 

RO:  I don't insinuate.  Frazier was intimated; the atmosphere was oppressive.  Since they could not put Oswald at that window, why do they have to worry about what Frazier said about the package years later?

If you assume that Oswald was on the steps as factual truth, then you have to concoct this whole circumstance to explain away Frazier's actions.

RO: I haven't assumed anything of the sort. The evidence shows he wasn't on the 6th floor, and under formal questioning he said he ate his lunch on the first floor and then went outside to watch the motorcade.  

It doesn't add up. Simpler is to simply admit that evidence of Oswald's being on the TSBD steps consists of a blurry photograph, and overly parsing witness statements and documents to fit the narrative. 

RO: Now you're off the deep end.  What do you mean "overly parsing witness statements and documents"?  Who is doing that?  Do you mean distorting those things?  Worse, distorting in order to fit a preconceived narrative?  Has Oswald's statement that he went outside to watch the P parade been "overly parsed"?

I have based none of my conclusions on a blurry photograph.  I am suggesting Darnell, if enhanced, might provide important corroboration to Oswald's alibi, such that it would destroy any remnants of the WR story.  For that reason, unquestionably Darnell should  be further investigated.   

 

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my. You've got it 100% backwards.

A draft of a report says that Oswald said he went outside to see the P. Parade. This could have been before it arrived (perhaps he came back inside since it was running late), or after the shooting. And yet you take it to mean he said he was outside on the front steps at the time of the shooting. 

Only he was asked where he was at the time, on camera, and he said he was in the building. You then counter this by claiming "at the time" is vague, and he probably meant that he was at work that day. 

This is bizarre. There is a vague account of what Oswald said--second hand information at best--to which you add detail to make it sound like it was his alibi... While at the same time there are his actual words which stand in opposition to what you assume was his alibi--that you choose to reject because maybe just maybe Oswald thought he was asked if he'd been at work that day, and not where he was at the time of the shooting. 

You're not following the evidence. You're twisting the evidence in a knot to support the ID of Oswald in a blurry photo...whether you realize it or not (knot?). 

Oh my, Pat.  One of us is confused and keeps distorting plain facts.

Lets' start at the beginning.  You keep asserting that Hosty's notes were not taken by Hosty during the initial interrogation, when it has been claimed Hosty was the only one taking notes.  No, you say,  Hosty wrote the note some time later (a day or two?) while preparing a report.  What's your proof of that?  Have you asked Bart, who made the discovery and has a good understanding of the context, when he thinks Hosty wrote that note?  No?  I think you know what his answer would be.

You used to claim you knew the note was not written during the interrogation because Hosty wouldn't take notes in full sentences.  Until it was pointed that the phrase in question is in fact a sentence fragment.  Haven't heard that one since.   

Secondly, even if what you say were true, what difference does the timing make if you acknowledge Hosty wrote the notes.  I've asked you that before and got no answer.  Although you have at times tried to cast suspicion on whether Oswald ever said that,  you haven't--yet as far as I know--claimed that Hosty simply made that up for some reason you have yet to divulge.

Next you say Hosty's note about Oswald's answer at his formal interrogation is merely some "vague" account--despite its plainly evident, explicit language.  It's second hand information at best, you say.  Whatever the hell that means.  Hosty was at the interrogation and wrote down what Oswald said.  That's second hand and thus less reliable to you?  To satisfy you, do you think we need to dig Oswald up and ask him what he said?  

To which, you say, I add detail to make it sound like Oswald's alibi when its really something else (what?)?  What detail are you talking about?  Oswald was no doubt asked where he was when the shots were fired.  It undoubtedly was the primary focus of the cops. He answered.  Hosty wrote down what he said.  But that's not his alibi?  Instead you want us to give more, apparently the only, weight to some response Oswald made to reporters hurling multiple questions at him in the hallway.  (it was on camera! ha.)  Where were you at the time is far less specific than what you know he was asked by the cops.  They wanted to pin him down on the specifics.  I've said elsewhere that the cops wanted to know his alibi so they could get about destroying any corroboration that might exist.  Their questions would have been pointed and specific so the information could be used against Oswald.  We don't know how much time was spent or how many questions were asked to draw Oswald's alibi out of him.  But the cos had every reason to be thorough. 

You finish with another one of your favorite canards.  I see Oswald in the blurry frame and, because I'm nothing if not disingenuous, I'm twisting (read distorting) evidence to bend it toward that preconceived notion.  Me telling you, more than once, that I've never said I know who the figure is, but would of course like to know his identity, hasn't slowed you one bit.  You just keep throwing it in there.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Oh my, Pat.  One of us is confused and keeps distorting plain facts.

Lets' start at the beginning.  You keep asserting that Hosty's notes were not taken by Hosty during the initial interrogation, when it has been claimed Hosty was the only one taking notes.  No, you say,  Hosty wrote the note some time later (a day or two?) while preparing a report.  What's your proof of that?  Have you asked Bart, who made the discovery and has a good understanding of the context, when he thinks Hosty wrote that note?  No?  I think you know what his answer would be.

You used to claim you knew the note was not written during the interrogation because Hosty wouldn't take notes in full sentences.  Until it was pointed that the phrase in question is in fact a sentence fragment.  Haven't heard that one since.   

Secondly, even if what you say were true, what difference does the timing make if you acknowledge Hosty wrote the notes.  I've asked you that before and got no answer.  Although you have at times tried to cast suspicion on whether Oswald ever said that,  you haven't--yet as far as I know--claimed that Hosty simply made that up for some reason you have yet to divulge.

Next you say Hosty's note about Oswald's answer at his formal interrogation is merely some "vague" account--despite its plainly evident, explicit language.  It's second hand information at best, you say.  Whatever the hell that means.  Hosty was at the interrogation and wrote down what Oswald said.  That's second hand and thus less reliable to you?  To satisfy you, do you think we need to dig Oswald up and ask him what he said?  

To which, you say, I add detail to make it sound like Oswald's alibi when its really something else (what?)?  What detail are you talking about?  Oswald was no doubt asked where he was when the shots were fired.  It undoubtedly was the primary focus of the cops. He answered.  Hosty wrote down what he said.  But that's not his alibi?  Instead you want us to give more, apparently the only, weight to some response Oswald made to reporters hurling multiple questions at him in the hallway.  (it was on camera! ha.)  Where were you at the time is far less specific than what you know he was asked by the cops.  They wanted to pin him down on the specifics.  I've said elsewhere that the cops wanted to know his alibi so they could get about destroying any corroboration that might exist.  Their questions would have been pointed and specific so the information could be used against Oswald.  We don't know how much time was spent or how many questions were asked to draw Oswald's alibi out of him.  But the cos had every reason to be thorough. 

You finish with another one of your favorite canards.  I see Oswald in the blurry frame and, because I'm nothing if not disingenuous, I'm twisting (read distorting) evidence to bend it toward that preconceived notion.  Me telling you, more than once, that I've never said I know who the figure is, but would of course like to know his identity, hasn't slowed you one bit.  You just keep throwing it in there.

 

You fail to understand that the image is the foundation of the Prayer Man cult. I watched it grow from nothing. People thought they saw Oswald in the image. They then and only then started looking for ways it could be him. All of the "evidence" they developed was developed to explain how it could be him. Without the image there was nothing. Heck, the whole idea of Prayer Man comes from the supposed posture of the figure in the image. 

It's like someone saying the moon is made of cheese. Someone said the moon looked like cheese and people started making up reasons to believe it's made of cheese. After being confronted with the reality it really doesn't look like cheese, however, some are now trying to claim they came to the conclusion it was cheese based on the evidence, and not based on the raison d'être for their whole movement--that its founders said it looked like cheese. 

It's not cheese. 

[Andrej Stancak]

11 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Willis was also an indication that the only people in and around the TSBD steps on film/video that wore short sleeves and no collars were all women.

There has never been and never will be a reference to Sarah Stanton by me, claiming she was Prayer Person.

In fact, here's another woman added, fitting that dress combination.

The men all were either wearing dress suits or shirts with collars, long sleeved shirts/sweaters. Hard to tell with BWF.

Prayer Person is wearing a short sleeve garment.

If it's Oswald, what/whose shirt was he wearing?

 

 

 

Chris:

the lady labelled #2 in your composite appeared to be too tall to fit Prayer Man figure. I have overlaid the relevant part of her figure onto Darnell still; the yellow line crosses the top of her head and shows how much taller she would be compared to Prayer Man. It does not mean that the lady would be 5' 7'' when barefoot. Almost all young ladies working in the TSBD wore high, 3.5'' heel shoes. Thus, she could well be of usual body height of 5'2''-5'3'' but her body heigth as it appears in this photograph would be inflated by about 3 inches owing to her high heels.

  

 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

As far as the other lady or ladies shown in Chris'es last post is concerned, obviously there are glaring mismatches in the shape of hairline and clothing  between that lady and Prayer Man. For instance, if this lady had the part of her arm above the elbow joint naked (and I can see this to be the case), this detail would exclude her as Prayer Man because Prayer Man has only his forearms exposed. 

However, there are more fundamental reasons for refuting the possibility that a woman could be Prayer Man. The main reasons are the body height, location and the posture. The overlay of my 3D model with original Darnell shows that a man 5' 9 5/8'' standing with his right foot on the step below the top landing would fit Prayer Man figure very accurately. There is no satisfactory solution for any person, man or woman, standing with both his or her feet on the top landing. I will explain it in a narrative, however, am also willing to prepare a model of a lady 5' 2 1/2'' with a light-coloured decolt and fit her as Prayer Man for everyone to see the problems.

A lady 5' 2 1/2'' standing with both her feet on the top landing would appear tiny, simply because she would be 7+'' shorter than Prayer Man and therefore her head and limbs and trunk would appear proportionally smaller compared to a person 5' 9 5/8''. As she would be standing with both her feet on the top landing, the vertical plane crossing her right elbow would be at least a 1/2 foot away from the same vertical plane crossing the right elbow of a man having one foot on the first step (or Prayer Man in Darnell). As person 5' 2 1/2'' would be tiny, she would need to be pushed a bit inward into the doorway toward the post of the glass door at the western wall to achieve her head be crossed by this post (seen in Darnell). This would cause additional increase of the distance between Prayer Man's right elbow and her right elbow. In an overlay of Darnell and a model having a lady 5' 2/12'' on the top landing, a glaring mismatch would be seen in the area of right elbow. To continue, a person 5' 2 1/2'' would be able to show a good correspondence between the top of Prayer Man's and this person's head, however, the rest of their bodies would not match because a person 5' 2 1/2'' has shorter arms than a person 5' 9 5/8'' standing 7 1/8 inch lower than the short person, and her crossed arms would appear 2 inches too high compared to Prayer Man's arms. 

Of course, I did test a possibility of a person 5' 2 1/2'' being Prayer Man, and saw the mismatches mentioned above. Prayer Man was one concrete person, whoever he was, and therefore we cannot have two alternative solutions (5' 9 5/8'' and 5' 2 1/2'') fitting Prayer Man equally well. Only one solution is possible. After spending more than 5 years on this project I can see that the only solution matching Prayer Man figure is the one having him standing with his right foot on the step below, and having his left foot slightly bent in the knee joint and resting on the top landing. Any other solution (e.g., a person standing with both his/her feet on the top landing) would not fare.

For the reasons explained here, I see not purpose in highlighting problems with every new lady identified in the doorway in historic photographs. No lady or man 5' 2 1/2'' would fit Prayer Man figure as that person would have to stand on the top landing causing incurable mismatches with Prayer Man figure in Darnell.

     

Edited September 17, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Gil Jesus]

15 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

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.  

 

When you use words like "could have" and "plausibile", you're speculating. There was no other "at that time" that makes any sense.

The reporter was asking about "at that time" referring to the time of the shooting. Was he in the building "at that time" he took the day off to go to the movies ? Was he in the building "at that time" he came to work ? You're grasping for straws, Roger. Oswald was in the building at the time of the shooting, but not on the sixth floor.

There's no evidence to corroborate Hosty's note that Oswald was outside the building. 31 Depository employees, some who knew him, were outside the building, some on the steps, some in front of the bulding, some across the street. Not one ever said they saw Oswald.

And if they didn't know Oswald on the 22nd, by the time they were interviewed in March 1964, the whole world knew what Oswald looked like. If he were out there, one of those 31 employees would have mentioned seeing him.

No Roger, he was asked by the reporter if he was in the building "at that time" the President was shot. He understood the question and answered it accordingly.

You don't have to overthink it. The evidence speaks for itself.

Edited September 17, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Paul Bacon]

3 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

For the reasons explained here, I see not purpose in highlighting problems with every new lady identified in the doorway in historic photographs. No lady or man 5' 2 1/2'' would fit Prayer Man figure as that person would have to stand on the top landing causing incurable mismatches with Prayer Man figure in Darnell.

Andrej, Chris Davidson is probably the only one in this thread who can appreciate the capabilities that the program you've used provide.  He does measurements inside photographs all the time.  I would love to see him corroberate your findings using his own methods.  I completely agree with you that the Prayerman figure is male.

A side note:  I was a small time remodeling contractor and I "photo-matched" (using the program) pictures I'd taken of potential jobs a lot of times.  It took time, but it was worth it because I could virtually build the whole addition (or deck, etc.) sitting at home on my computer.  It was accurate enough that I could pre-cut parts without resorting to tape measures and plumb bobs hanging in thin air.

Sketchup--architects use it all the time--is very accurate.  You've done great work.

[Andrej Stancak]

On 9/17/2022 at 3:03 PM, Paul Bacon said:

Andrej, Chris Davidson is probably the only one in this thread who can appreciate the capabilities that the program you've used provide.  He does measurements inside photographs all the time.  I would love to see him corroberate your findings using his own methods.  I completely agree with you that the Prayerman figure is male.

A side note:  I was a small time remodeling contractor and I "photo-matched" (using the program) pictures I'd taken of potential jobs a lot of times.  It took time, but it was worth it because I could virtually build the whole addition (or deck, etc.) sitting at home on my computer.  It was accurate enough that I could pre-cut parts without resorting to tape measures and plumb bobs hanging in thin air.

Sketchup--architects use it all the time--is very accurate.  You've done great work.

Paul: 

thank you for your encouraging comments. Sketchup is a professional architect design software and very suitable for modelling a space such as Depository doorway. It struggles a bit with human models as those require a notoriously large number of triangles to render the curved shapes and details, e.g, face. Therefore, I used Poser 11 program to model the most important persons, such as Oswald. It is encouraging to have among us someone who is familiar with Sketchup.

Chris could speak for himself if he could endorse my analysis. I remember he determined the height of the plane crossing the top of Prayer Man's head as 5' 3'' which is in almost perfect agreement with my estimate of 5' 2 5/8''.

However, I always provide an independent validation of model-based height estimate. The height of the plane crossing Prayer Man's top of the head can be determined by comparing the height of that plane with Buell Wesley Frazier body. The plane of interest crosses Frazier's body at the height of his shoulders or lower aspect of his chin. As Frazier's body height is known (6' or 6' 1/2''), it is possible to arrive at a reasonable height estimate using an online tool allowing to compare appearances of two people of known heights, in our case 6' 1/2'' and 5' 1/2'', for instance here: https://www.mrinitialman.com/OddsEnds/Sizes/compsizes.xhtml , and this would be the outcome:

 

 

Independent validation is always useful and adds to the validity of the model-based analysis.

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Andrej Stancak

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You fail to understand that the image is the foundation of the Prayer Man cult. I watched it grow from nothing. People thought they saw Oswald in the image. They then and only then started looking for ways it could be him. All of the "evidence" they developed was developed to explain how it could be him. Without the image there was nothing. Heck, the whole idea of Prayer Man comes from the supposed posture of the figure in the image.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong wrong!

First Pat, as one moderator to another, I respectfully ask you to quit referring to Prayer Man proponents -- like myself -- as cult members. Just stop.

The second way you're wrong is by characterizing the "Oswald being outside during the motorcade" idea as being based solely on the image of Prayer Man. You say, "Without the image there was nothing." That is sooooo wrong!

As a fairly new member of the forum many years ago, I stated following a thread where the participants were looking for Gloria Calvery in the films. I had no idea why they were looking for her, but I took it as a challenge and began looking for her too.

While doing so, I became aware of statements made by Officer Baker that contradicted his first-day statement. I then began studying the multiple, varying, sometime self-contradictory statements made by those who were linked to Gloria Calvery in the story, Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley.

With the help of others along the way, I finally identified Gloria Calvery in Darnell (She is facing and clearly talking to Billy Lovelady on the TSBD steps about 30 seconds after the final shot. If you have a program that allows frame-by-frame viewing of the film, you can see him stooping down, apparently so he can hear Calvery.)

Knowing where Calvery was 30 seconds after the shots proved that Shelley and Lovelady lied to the WC.

Right around the same time, I gave a presentations that proves that Officer Baker did not make a mad dash into the TSBD, which was the second impeachment against his testimony in the official story. (Note: It wasn't an original observation of mine that Baker did not run straight into the TSBD as claimed. Others noticed it first, after which I proved it with photo-analysis.)

And there is more.... which I'll spare you.

In the end it became clear to me that the Warren Commission (their counsel) had developed a fabricated story that would put Oswald in a place he could have been had he run down the rear steps from the 6th floor snipers nest immediately after shooting Kennedy. That place being the 2nd floor lunchroom... a place he had indeed said he was, to get a coke, in his interrogation. Problem is, Oswald told his interrogators that he'd gone there to get a coke for lunch, and then gone right back down to finish eating his lunch. (Which Hosty's note corroborates.) The WC changed this to Oswald being encountered by Baker there.

It is common knowledge that Victoria Adam's testimony destroys the WC's descent of Oswald to the 2nd-floor. Because she ran down the stairs the very same time the Oswald was supposed to have. My studies of Lovelady's and Shelley's ever-changing and self contradictory statements showed that the purpose for the WC involving them was to use them as (supposed) witnesses to show that Victoria Adams ran down the steps too late hear or see Oswald's (fabricated) run down the steps.

Once I determined that the 2nd floor Oswald/Baker encounter was a sham, I merely had to go to the FBI's third interrogation report and remove the 2nd floor nonsense to find out what Oswald really said. Here is what he said (ignore the crossed off nonsense):

Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home.

The fabricated part consists of two inserted phrases, which I have crossed off. With that nonsense removed, the interrogation report states the same thing as Hosty's note! Which wasn't discovered till a couple years later. Here is what Hosty wrote:

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

(BTW, if you leave the 2nd floor encounter nonsense in, FBI report #3 makes no sense. It has Oswald going to lunch AFTER the Baker/Oswald encounter!)

Now Pat... tell me where in the above story I based ANYTHING on Prayer Man?

 

BTW, I didn't become a Prayer Man proponent until after 1) Andrej showed with his model that PM could be standing at the FRONT of the landing (I thought he was standing far back), and 2) Bart revealed the Hosty note. Both of which took place long AFTER I'd concluded that Oswald went outside to watch the parade.

 

[Roger Odisio]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You fail to understand that the image is the foundation of the Prayer Man cult. I watched it grow from nothing. People thought they saw Oswald in the image. They then and only then started looking for ways it could be him. All of the "evidence" they developed was developed to explain how it could be him. Without the image there was nothing. Heck, the whole idea of Prayer Man comes from the supposed posture of the figure in the image. 

It's like someone saying the moon is made of cheese. Someone said the moon looked like cheese and people started making up reasons to believe it's made of cheese. After being confronted with the reality it really doesn't look like cheese, however, some are now trying to claim they came to the conclusion it was cheese based on the evidence, and not based on the raison d'être for their whole movement--that its founders said it looked like cheese. 

It's not cheese. 

Prayerman energized and focused the community seeking to exonerate Oswald, it did not create it.  Among the legion of researchers who didn't believe the WR, Sylvia Meagher in the 60s was already saying she thought a major neglected part of the story was Oswald's alibi.  She wasn't referring to that snippet with reporters in the hallway.

Deciphering the Prayerman image is actually a one way street.  If he turns out to be Oswald, game over.  The WR blows up.  Of course it won't be easy getting that story out, given the media blockade, so that everyone can understand it.

But if PM is not Oswald, so what.  That means he wasn't on the steps at that brief moment Darnell swung his camera around.  It's not proof he wasn't there at all  during the motorcade and its aftermath.  It does not contradict Oswald's alibi about his whereabouts.   

Those some people you say who claim the evidence led them to expect that PM might be Oswald rather than their incredible ability to decipher what is currently mostly a blur includes me.  Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor (as you agree).  He said he went outside to see the motorcade.  I think most people on the steps didn't see him, but that's a detail.  Once Oswald was murdered, all authorities were proclaiming his guilt, and the suppression of alternatives (sometimes brutal) had begun, who among the brave souls here would have stepped forward to contradict the official story. Given the stranglehold on information imposed by the authorities and the media what difference would that have made anyway?  Which is one reason why even the bravest of souls could see it was not worth doing.

In fact, with all the (misplaced) emphasis on what witnesses said or didn't say, where is that witness who definitively placed Oswald as somewhere else when the motorcade passed such that he couldn't have been outside?

I remain perplexed by those who believe Oswald didn't do it, but expend such energy arguing he wasn't on the steps and couldn't be PM.  Without first wanting to see a PM enhancement.

[Chris Davidson]

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris could speak for himself if he could endorse my analysis. I remember he determined the height of the plane crossing the top of Prayer Man's head as 5' 3'' which is in almost perfect agreement with my estimate of 5' 2 5/8''.

Independent validation is always useful and adds to the validity of the model-based analysis.

 

Andrej,

I have no problems with the analysis you've presented. 

But, as is my nature, I try to introduce alternative explanations to existing hypothesis.

If you are correct that PrayerPerson is Oswald, your work will hold against any/all variables.

Arising from that is the independent validation which occurs.

So, I'll provide this endorsement(gif) with the caveat that Darnell is still a blurry frame.

The Willis photo is also valuable because the LOS is the closest I've found to the Darnell frame. There is a height difference between the two cameras but it doesn't play a major role.

I have a few other concerns besides James H. 6thFM neckline description/shirt. I'll use the Willis frame for conveying it a little later on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong wrong!

First Pat, as one moderator to another, I respectfully ask you to quit referring to Prayer Man proponents -- like myself -- as cult members. Just stop.

The second way you're wrong is by characterizing the "Oswald being outside during the motorcade" idea as being based solely on the image of Prayer Man. You say, "Without the image there was nothing." That is sooooo wrong!

As a fairly new member of the forum many years ago, I stated following a thread where the participants were looking for Gloria Calvery in the films. I had no idea why they were looking for her, but I took it as a challenge and began looking for her too.

While doing so, I became aware of statements made by Officer Baker that contradicted his first-day statement. I then began studying the multiple, varying, sometime self-contradictory statements made by those who were linked to Gloria Calvery in the story, Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley.

With the help of others along the way, I finally identified Gloria Calvery in Darnell (She is facing and clearly talking to Billy Lovelady on the TSBD steps about 30 seconds after the final shot. If you have a program that allows frame-by-frame viewing of the film, you can see him stooping down, apparently so he can hear Calvery.)

Knowing where Calvery was 30 seconds after the shots proved that Shelley and Lovelady lied to the WC.

Right around the same time, I gave a presentations that proves that Officer Baker did not make a mad dash into the TSBD, which was the second impeachment against his testimony in the official story. (Note: It wasn't an original observation of mine that Baker did not run straight into the TSBD as claimed. Others noticed it first, after which I proved it with photo-analysis.)

And there is more.... which I'll spare you.

In the end it became clear to me that the Warren Commission (their counsel) had developed a fabricated story that would put Oswald in a place he could have been had he run down the rear steps from the 6th floor snipers nest immediately after shooting Kennedy. That place being the 2nd floor lunchroom... a place he had indeed said he was, to get a coke, in his interrogation. Problem is, Oswald told his interrogators that he'd gone there to get a coke for lunch, and then gone right back down to finish eating his lunch. (Which Hosty's note corroborates.) The WC changed this to Oswald being encountered by Baker there.

It is common knowledge that Victoria Adam's testimony destroys the WC's descent of Oswald to the 2nd-floor. Because she ran down the stairs the very same time the Oswald was supposed to have. My studies of Lovelady's and Shelley's ever-changing and self contradictory statements showed that the purpose for the WC involving them was to use them as (supposed) witnesses to show that Victoria Adams ran down the steps too late hear or see Oswald's (fabricated) run down the steps.

Once I determined that the 2nd floor Oswald/Baker encounter was a sham, I merely had to go to the FBI's third interrogation report and remove the 2nd floor nonsense to find out what Oswald really said. Here is what he said (ignore the crossed off nonsense):

Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home.

The fabricated part consists of two inserted phrases, which I have crossed off. With that nonsense removed, the interrogation report states the same thing as Hosty's note! Which wasn't discovered till a couple years later. Here is what Hosty wrote:

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

(BTW, if you leave the 2nd floor encounter nonsense in, FBI report #3 makes no sense. It has Oswald going to lunch AFTER the Baker/Oswald encounter!)

Now Pat... tell me where in the above story I based ANYTHING on Prayer Man?

 

BTW, I didn't become a Prayer Man proponent until after 1) Andrej showed with his model that PM could be standing at the FRONT of the landing (I thought he was standing far back), and 2) Bart revealed the Hosty note. Both of which took place long AFTER I'd concluded that Oswald went outside to watch the parade.

 

Is it correct to say you have abandoned your earlier ID of Shelley and Lovelady walking up the Elm Street Extension, and now believe Lovelady was on the steps a minute or so afterwards? 

Because the ID of Shelley and Lovelady in the films proves they spent a lot less time outside than suggested by their estimates, and strongly suggests they would have arrived at the back stairs within a few seconds of Vickie Adams' descent. And this in turn supports that she was telling the truth when she said she spoke to them upon reaching the first floor. Correct? 

As far as the rest of your post... Are you really suggesting that a statement in which the problematic parts for your theory have been removed is evidence for your theory? I mean, if so, we could just go through all the statements in which people said they did not see Oswald and change them to be that they did see Oswald. Ta-da!