PrayerPerson ???

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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? 

 

Yes, that is correct. I used to believe that Shelley and Lovelady walked together down Elm Street Extension to the railroad tracks. But I quit believing it when I became aware of evidence indicating otherwise.

 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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? 

 

That's right. But only if the two in the film are indeed Shelley and Lovelady, which I don't believe to be the case. And only if Vickie Adam's saw them, which she says she didn't.

 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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!

 

What I am saying is this:

By studying the evidence carefully, I determined that the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter was fabricated.

So I removed that fabricated story from an account of Oswald's interrogation.

Upon doing so, that account matched another account of the interrogation... Hosty's handwritten account.

 

Now let me ask you Pat...

The official interrogation report says the following happened:

1. Oswald went to the the second floor to get a coke.
2. Officer Baker had an encounter with Oswald there.
3. Then Oswald went to the first floor and ate lunch.

Do you believe that Oswald ate lunch after encountering Officer Baker? Neither do I.

After removing the 2nd floor encounter, which I had determined from the evidence was fabricated, the official interrogation report reads this way:

1. Oswald went to the the second floor to get a coke.
2. Then Oswald went to the first floor and ate lunch.

Voila! Problem solved.

Now the report makes sense. AND it says the same thing as Hosty's handwritten note. Hosty's note corroborates that the 2nd floor encounter was indeed fabricated.

 

 

[Ed LeDoux]

On 9/10/2022 at 12:39 PM, Pat Speer said:

I am confused. Has anything been added to this image? Or is there a woman standing in the Prayer Person location in this image who looks exactly like Prayer Person? 

Exactly how does a curly light haired woman look 'exactly' like a male with dark receeding hairline?

Dont answer Pat and save us all a lot of mish mash mush for dinner.

Or something exactly like mish mash mush.... 

Cheers Again,

Ed

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The official interrogation report says the following happened:

1. Oswald went to the the second floor to get a coke.
2. Officer Baker had an encounter with Oswald there.
3. Then Oswald went to the first floor and ate lunch.

Do you believe that Oswald ate lunch after encountering Officer Baker? Neither do I.

Of course Oswald didn't eat lunch on the first floor after his encounter with Officer Baker. That was merely one of the many lies Oswald told the police after his arrest.

Oswald also didn't "stand around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley" after the encounter with Baker either, which is yet another of Lee Oswald's lies that appears in James Bookhout's 11/22/63 solo FBI report.

One of the very few things that Oswald didn't lie about after he was arrested, however, was his encounter with Officer Baker in the lunchroom. And that's because he had no reason whatsoever to want to lie about that particular event. And he also knew he couldn't very well lie and say the encounter never took place at all, because there were two witnesses (Baker and Truly) who could easily prove that such an encounter did take place.

In order to believe that the authorities just MADE UP the Baker/Truly/Oswald lunchroom encounter from whole cloth, you'd have to believe (as many conspiracy theorists do) that BOTH Roy Truly and Marrion Baker were big fat li@rs, which is an absurd belief (for all the reasons discussed at the link below).

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

............

[Chris Davidson]

On 9/17/2022 at 8:34 AM, 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.

 

The Willis photo(imo) provides a key measuring element that was not available in previous photos when I arrived at 5'3".

You could say it was a top down measurement and as accurate as I could find at the time.

The TSBD stair area was built level and plumb.

I would suggest creating/adjusting a graphic with this in mind.

Next, take the height difference(use pixels) between the Oswald-Frazier height lines and compare that to the height difference(use pixels) between the landing and next step down(referencing the red lines in Willis) and see what you get.

This is what has bothered me for a long time because it made it appear that if Oswald is PrayerPerson, his legs would have to be longer, allowing him to be on that next step down.

Using the Willis photo, knowing where that next step down is, I arrive at someone on the landing at 5'5 1/2" tall or someone on the next step down at 6' provided that last step is a 7" rise.

I used 72.5" for BWF height, accounting for 1/2" shoe rise.

Added on edit: The last step is a 7.25" rise not 7" which puts the person, if standing on the landing at 5'4 8/10".

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Chris Davidson
Height Adjustment

[Paul Bacon]

16 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The Willis photo(imo) provides a key measuring element that was not available in previous photos when I arrived at 5'3".

You could say it was a top down measurement and as accurate as I could find at the time.

The TSBD stair area was built level and plumb.

I would suggest creating/adjusting a graphic with this in mind.

Next, take the height difference(use pixels) between the Oswald-Frazier height lines and compare that to the height difference(use pixels) between the landing and next step down(referencing the red lines in Willis) and see what you get.

This is what has bothered me for a long time because it made it appear that if Oswald is PrayerPerson, his legs would have to be longer, allowing him to be on that next step down.

Using the Willis photo, knowing where that next step down is, I arrive at someone on the landing at 5'5 1/2" tall or someone on the next step down at 6' provided that last step is a 7" rise.

I used 72.5" for BWF height, accounting for 1/2" shoe rise.

 

 

Chris, that rise, to me, looks more like an 8" than a 7", but I don't have the ability to measure it--just going by eye.

30 or more years ago it was quite common to have risers higher than what is usual these days (7"-7.5")--especially on exterior stairs.  Don't know how that may effect your thinking...

If I remember correctly, Andrej may have taken the measurements used to create the model from a document listing dimensions of the doorway area.

Edited September 19, 2022 by Paul Bacon
add sentance

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/18/2022 at 2:10 AM, David Von Pein said:

On 9/17/2022 at 10:22 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

The official interrogation report says the following happened:

1. Oswald went to the the second floor to get a coke.
2. Officer Baker had an encounter with Oswald there.
3. Then Oswald went to the first floor and ate lunch.

Do you believe that Oswald ate lunch after encountering Officer Baker? Neither do I.

Expand  

 

On 9/18/2022 at 2:10 AM, David Von Pein said:

Of course Oswald didn't eat lunch on the first floor after his encounter with Officer Baker. That was merely one of the many lies Oswald told the police after his arrest.

 

Oh sure David, Oswald lied about eating lunch after encountering Baker in order to prove his innocence.

Not! Such a lie makes no sense. And therefore we know it wasn't Oswald who lied.

It was the WC/FBI who lied. They DID have an incentive to insert the fabricated 2nd floor encounter. Too bad (for them) their deceit was betrayed by the damage it did to the chronology of Oswald's story.

 

On 9/18/2022 at 2:10 AM, David Von Pein said:

Oswald also didn't "stand around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley" after the encounter with Baker either, which is yet another of Lee Oswald's lies that appears in James Bookhout's 11/22/63 solo FBI report.

 

You and I both believe Oswald said that. It is corroborated by Hosty's handwritten report.

Why did the WC cover it up David?

 

On 9/18/2022 at 2:10 AM, David Von Pein said:

In order to believe that the authorities just MADE UP the Baker/Truly/Oswald lunchroom encounter from whole cloth, you'd have to believe (as many conspiracy theorists do) that BOTH Roy Truly and Marrion Baker were big fat li@rs, which is an absurd belief (for all the reasons discussed at the link below).

 

Those who lied in their WC testimony regarding the 2nd floor encounter were Roy Truly, Officer Baker, Bill Shelley, and Billy Lovelady. Plus the WC/FBI altered Vickie Adam's WC testimony.

People WILL lie if it's for national security purposes, or if they feel threatened.

 

[Chris Davidson]

7 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Chris, that rise, to me, looks more like an 8" than a 7", but I don't have the ability to measure it--just going by eye.

30 or more years ago it was quite common to have risers higher than what is usual these days (7"-7.5")--especially on exterior stairs.  Don't know how that may effect your thinking...

If I remember correctly, Andrej may have taken the measurements used to create the model from a document listing dimensions of the doorway area.

Thanks Paul,

Making the assumption that the stairs are the same as back in 63'

Added on edit: The last step is a 7.25" rise not 7" which puts the person, if standing on the landing at 5'4 8/10". imo

I found this again, credit to Ray:

Edited September 19, 2022 by Chris Davidson
Height Adjustment

[Roger Odisio]

On 9/17/2022 at 7:46 AM, Gil Jesus said:

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.

You baldly assert you know with certainty that Oswald's answer to the reporter's question means he was in(side) the building when the shots rang out.  When I offered one (just one) alternative interpretation of the question, you say I'm speculating, grasping at straws.  You're certain you know what the reporter meant and by extension where Oswald was at the key moments--the evidence speaks for itself.  I'm merely speculating and presumably ignoring that evidence.

I offered one (only one) alternative to your claim. The encounter with the reporters was brief and disjointed (many questions were hurled at Oswald in rapid succession).  It was early in the process.  The reporters probably knew he was arrested shortly after the murder in a movie theater.  The reporter was gathering basic information and had no opportunity clarify his question by, for example, adding as the shots happened?  Did he report for work that day is indeed a plausible explanation of what the reporter meant to ask.  

There are other explanations of that phrase.  Let me set out three off the top of my head.  (1) were you at work that day, (2) were you in the the building when the motorcade arrived, (3) were you there when the shots rang out.  It is obvious , isn't it, that *none* of these, together with Oswald's answer *precludes* him from saying yes, yet still having stepped out on the steps at some point in time to be caught on Darnell.  Or in fact  briefly stepping out and *not* being caught on Darnell.  Or being caught on someone else's tape which was confiscated and which we don't know about. All of which comport with Oswald's alibi.

During the time the motorcade passed the building and continued on down Elm St.,  Oswald could have *both* been inside the building and at some point stepped out on the steps.

Let's get one thing straight.  Oswald's alibi was what he told the authorities under questioning.  Not some quick answer to an ambiguous question hurled at him by reporters in a hallway.  Hosty recorded it. It stands on its own.

It's meaningless to claim that none of the other 31 witnesses to the event, including those on the steps, backed up what Oswald said.  Let me ask you.  After all of the authorities from Hoover, to the head cops, to those at the White House situation room (run at the time by McGeorge Bundy) had quickly, and in most cases publicly, fingered Oswald as guilty, would you have testified, no, he couldn't have done it; I saw him on the steps at about that time?  More importantly, would your statement ever see the light of day?  Do you think your statement would have caused the framers to abandon their story and start looking for the real killers?  Even more important, if you tried to persist, were you likely to have taken many more breaths?

Are you aware that even Sen. Russell's statement of dissent on the magic bullet was deleted from the WR without his knowledge.  The framers recognized, and apparently Russell didn't, that without the magic bullet  their fairy tale of Oswald as lone assassin is destroyed.

 

[Tony Krome]

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

The encounter with the reporters was brief and disjointed (many questions were hurled at Oswald in rapid succession). 

The person X who asked "were you in the building at the time?" was the same person X who asked "did you shoot the president?" immediately before. To be clear, this person X asked this exact same question as another person before him. So if Oswald was directing answers at this person X, let's look at the first response: Question from person X "did you shoot the president? Response "I work in that building". That doesn't make sense right? It appears Oswald was not responding to this person X. Next we have the "were you in the building at the time?" question from person X. Oswald responds with a sarcastic "naturally" as if he felt that his previous answer was sufficient, an answer to someone else. not this person X. In a nutshell, we don't know the context of Oswald's response when he said "I work in that building", and therefore we don't know what the answer "naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir" actually relates to.

[Pat Speer]

So let's be clear... A handwritten draft for an FBI report which contains the claim Oswald said he went outside to watch the parade that does not specify at what time he went outside (and which is not supported by any actual reports written by the FBI or DPD, or even the statements of the man who wrote this draft) is clear-cut evidence Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting... While a taped exchange with Oswald in which he is asked if he was in the building at the time of the shooting and responded in the affirmative is ambiguous...

Got it... 

Clear as mud...

 

[Andrej Stancak]

On 9/18/2022 at 7:04 PM, Chris Davidson said:

which puts the person, if standing on the landing at 5'4 8/10".

Chris:

your new estimate of 5' 5'' (I am rounding to the next inch as we do not really have accuracy of tenths of inches; my estimates have accuracy of about 1/2'') should be wrong in my opinion, and your former estimate of 5' 3'' would be very close to my estimate of 5' 2 1/2'' for the height of plane crossing the top of Prayer man's head.

Please consider how a tall person 5' 5'' would look like when standing on the top landing. You can 1) subtract a value 9' 1/2'' (the height of head in a male of Fraziers' body height) from Frazier's body height because Prayer Man's head reached only to the shoulder level or lower aspect of his chin (should be the same levels), and you get a numeric estimate of 5' 2 1/2' (Frazier 6') ' or 5' 3'' (Frazier 6' 1/2''). 2) you can also compare appearances of two people of unequal heights standing on the same plane using an online tool, e.g. https://www.mrinitialman.com/OddsEnds/Sizes/compsizes.xhtml, and there may be even better tools out there. A person 5' 5'' would reach to about mouth level of a person 6' or 6' 1/2''. 3) I was able to verify my estimate by setting a body heights of two mannequins in Scketchup to 6' and 5' 2 1/2'' to verify my estimate. 4) you can have a feet metric scale with feet and inches as a vertically orientated tape measure, and get a picture of normal sized male, and scale him to 6' (or 6' 1/2'') and again in the way that the next image would reach the body height at the level of the first person's shoulder line, and read the height value for the shorter person.

Here is a comparison combining methods 3 and 4.

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Reporter: "Did you shoot the president?"

Oswald: "I work in that building and --"

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

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

How should we interpret Oswald's second reply? What did Oswald mean to say?

Interpretation 1: "Naturally, since I work in that building, I was inside the building when the shots were fired."

This literal interpretation doesn't make sense. It doesn't follow that if Oswald worked in that building, he would have been inside the building at the time the shots were fired. He knew that many other people who worked in the building were not inside it at the time the president passed by, whether or not he knew exactly when the shots were fired. This cannot be what he meant.

Interpretation 2: "Naturally, since I work in that building, there was nothing incriminating about my being inside the building at the exact time the shots were fired."

This interpretation does make sense, and it is conceivable that this is the message Oswald meant to convey, if his protestations of innocence were genuine.

If we assume that the enclosed space immediately outside the front door would have been considered by Oswald to be located outside the building, this interpretation contradicts the notion that Oswald was standing there while the shots were being fired.

But it is consistent with the notion that:

1. Oswald was in or near the domino room at the time the shots were fired;
2. that he heard the shots or the subsequent commotion;
3. that he then went outside to see what was going on;
4. that he was caught on film half a minute or so after the shots were fired;
5. and that he was not noticed by any of the other people on the steps (or by most of those people, if we accept that some arm-twisting might have taken place).

This interpretation requires Oswald to have known that at least some of the shots were fired from the sixth floor of the building in which he worked, and that he knew or deduced exactly when those shots were fired. But he might well not have known either of these things if he had been in the domino room at the time. Troy West, who was inside the building and not watching the motorcade, wasn't fully aware of what was going on: "I was on the first floor making coffee for the employees. I was alone at this time and did not know at the time that President Kennedy had been shot." (CE 1381)

Of course, this interpretation is also consistent with the notion that Oswald was on the sixth floor, firing the shots himself. But no strong evidence exists that he was there at that time, or that he fired any shots that day, whereas strong evidence does exist that he was on the ground floor just a few minutes before the shots were fired, when James Jarman and Harold Norman entered the building by one of the rear entrances. There is no evidence that he ascended to the sixth floor after seeing Jarman and Norman.

Interpretation 3: "Naturally, since I work in that building, there was nothing incriminating about my being inside the building at approximately the time the motorcade passed the building."

This interpretation too is plausible: it makes logical sense, and Oswald might well have meant to say this.

Interpretation 4: "Naturally, since I work in that building, there was nothing incriminating about my being inside the building today."

The same applies to this interpretation.

Interpretation 5: "Naturally, since I work in that building, there is nothing surprising about the fact that I was inside the building at some point earlier today. What a stupid question!"

Again, this interpretation is plausible. Having been arrested a few miles away from his place of work, he was confirming to the reporter that he had in fact been at work that day. A terse, literal, and perhaps sarcastic reply would be consistent with Oswald's character.

Seconds earlier, he had denied the suggestion that he had shot the president, and he was now being asked what he may well have taken to be a trivial question about where he worked. If so, his reply was not inconsistent with his having been standing on the steps half a minute after the shooting, whether or not he was there during the actual shooting.

Conclusion

There may well be other interpretations of Oswald's reply to the reporter. The important point is that a plausible case can be made that Oswald's reply is consistent with his being Prayer Man. The reply need not have been a direct assertion that he was inside the building while the shots were being fired.

One might argue that Oswald should have provided the reporter with a full explanation of his innocence: "I couldn't have shot the president because I was standing by the front door. If you don't believe me, just ask Wes!" Or: "I couldn't have shot the president because I was in the domino room. If you don't believe me, just ask ask Junior and Shorty!" But there are several possible reasons for his failure to mention his exact location:

• He wasn't asked (or axed) that specific question. Oswald was in the habit of answering questions bluntly and not going into details or digressing.
• If he was not aware that all the shots were supposed to have been fired from the sixth floor, he wouldn't understand that being on the ground floor provided him with an alibi.
• He knew that he hadn't shot the president, and he considered the accusation absurd.
• Giving his account to the police and the FBI was all he needed to do. They would investigate the matter objectively, and release him in due course.
• Rather than explain his precise location to those reporters at that time, he would discuss the matter with Mr Abt, who would give Oswald's account to the public in the unlikely event that Oswald wasn't released without charge.
• There was no immediate need to tell the reporters anything. Oswald didn't know that he would be killed two days later, while in police custody, by a dodgy nightclub owner who was a police groupie and mob hanger-on. He didn't know that his murder would allow his account of his movements to be suppressed and distorted by the officials who interviewed him, and by their successors.

Prayer Man

If a clear version of the Darnell or Wiegman films ever becomes available to the public, three outcomes are possible:

1. The figure is clearly Oswald.
2. The figure is clearly not Oswald.
3. The figure remains ambiguous.

We know that Oswald's account of his whereabouts is consistent with his having been the figure on the steps, and that every other book depository employee can be ruled out, to varying degrees of certainty.

We also know that if the figure does turn out to be Oswald, the consequences would be tremendous; it would be the single most important breakthrough in the case. The lone-nut theory would bite the dust, along with a number of pet conspiracy theories. There is actually a realistic possibility that our successors will not be repeating the same old arguments in 60 years' time.

Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? Is it worth trying to get access to good-quality copies of the films, if they exist? Do we want to get the case resolved or not?

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

We also know that if the figure does turn out to be Oswald, the consequences would be tremendous; it would be the single most important breakthrough in the case. The lone-nut theory would bite the dust, along with a number of pet conspiracy theories. There is actually a realistic possibility that our successors will not be repeating the same old arguments in 60 years' time.

Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? Is it worth trying to get access to good-quality copies of the films, if they exist? Do we want to get the case resolved or not?

I agree Jeremy. Obtaining clearer copies of the the films is of the utmost importance because the expected value of doing so is astronomical. Even if there’s a .001% chance that PM is Oswald, if it’s him the JFK case gets reopened immediately.

Not trying to find out the true identity of PM is like a poker hand where you have the opportunity to check the river and win the World Series of Poker but you fold instead. It’s a hand with literally infinite pot odds, a win-win proposition any way you look at it. The only “risk” involved if it isn’t Oswald is finding out who the f*** was standing on the steps and getting a better photographic record of Dealey Plaza. 

[Pat Speer]

As stated ad nauseam, the CTs with the means to get a clearer copy of the film have viewed a clearer copy of the film. and stopped pursuing a clearer copy of the film afterwards. To my understanding some who viewed this film remained convinced it showed Oswald. But none with the moolah or cache thought it worth the effort to purchase this film or pursue another film of similar quality. 

It's toast, IMO. Pursuing Prayer Man is like trying to document James Files' confession, or Judyth Baker's love story. If it was gonna happen it would have happened, IMO. 

In the meantime there are a number of much better leads that remain largely unexamined in the media.