PrayerPerson ???

[David Von Pein]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Most everything that happened after the assassination was a part of the Johnson Administration's cover-up. They fabricated the false documentation showing that Oswald ordered the gun.

And that must mean you think that LBJ's people somehow got Bill Waldman of Klein's to lie his ass off regarding the microfilmed records that were discovered in the early morning hours of 11/23/63 among the Klein's records in Chicago, Illinois?

Is that what you believe, Sandy?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

47 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And that must mean you think that LBJ's people somehow got Bill Waldman of Klein's to lie his ass off regarding the microfilmed records that were discovered in the early morning hours of 11/23/63 among the Klein's records in Chicago, Illinois?

Is that what you believe, Sandy?

 

If he said that Oswald bought the rifle... then Yep.

 

[Andrej Stancak]

20 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

I hope It is LHO.

But what puzzles me is….after the imaginative creation of the ‘Oswald legend’, the sheepdipping, the guidance from dubious 3rd parties etc…. how/why was the designated patsy allowed to be seen in public? Shouldn’t he have been told to be totally out of sight? He can’t be the shooter if he’s on the front step. I’m not sure the organisers of the plot would have let this happen after so much nefarious hard work-which was to culminate in- LHO shooting JFK, from the 6th floor, with his ‘own’ rifle.

In a nutshell…he shouldn’t have been there.

Sean:

you certainly have a valid point. There are two possibilities of why it was possible for Lee Oswald to be out and photographed. One plausible theory is along the line presented in The Second Plot (Matthew Smith, 2002; available on Amazon) which says that Lee Oswald was only aware of the "second" plot which was to get to Red Bird airfield on Friday afternoon and be flown to Cuba for his another mission, as a continuation of his New Orleans-Mexico City activities aimed against Castro. He was told that JFK's visit will be a welcome distraction allowing him to depart from Red Bird airfield unnoticed. Larry Hancock and David Boylan did subsequent amazing research on the Red Bird part. There is another possibility, maybe a less likely one, that Lee Oswald participated in a mock assassination attempt and was told to lend his rifle which would temporarily drive attention to a pro-Castro sympathiser, allowing to break the war against Cuba. However, he was also told that he could always prove his innocence by being provably somewhere else than on the sixth floor. Only after hearing (witnessing) the shooting did Lee realise he was in big trouble and became to behave like a fugitive. I may be wrong, however, the moment he learned about JFK's killing could be the moment in Darnell when he was standing at the western wall and the lady with a dark scarf (Gloria Calvary) approached the doorway and told everyonene what she had seen. It would explain Prayer Man's gaze orientated toward Elm/Houston street, seen in the critical Darnell still. Prayer Man was not exploring the scene around Grassy Knoll or Tripple Underpass like everyone else in the doorway because he already knew enough, and he was now thinking what he should do next.

I do not know which of the two scenarios would be more plausible, and I am currently willing to admit either as an explanation for Lee being out and photographed. What would you think?

 

[Andrej Stancak]

15 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Andrej,

Since the heads/faces are blurry, I always thought it would be better to use actual photos of BWF/Oswald for the comparisons/models:

 

 

Chris:

your animation feels dead realistic, I have to say, even if it is not a proof.

[Denis Morissette]

I believe that everybody is wrong. I believe that PM is not Oswald, but one of his multiple doubles. I agree with Judyth Baker that Lee threw a firecracker from the 6th floor to alert the SS. I'd like to know what David Von Pein thinks of my statements. 

Edited September 22, 2022 by Denis Morissette

[Tony Krome]

On 9/17/2022 at 6:10 AM, Chris Davidson said:

 

Does that front door open by pushing in, or only by pulling out as per the top pic?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

I don't know what Oswald's instructions were, but clearly he was supposed to meet someone in the theater. ... The whole operation had to be planned. ... The TSBD must have been a CIA front. A CIA employee working at the TSBD must have offered the job to Oswald. And a CIA handler had to have instructed Oswald to take the job. ... They fabricated the false documentation showing that Oswald ordered the gun.

If the idea was to kill JFK and make it look as though the Soviets or Cubans were behind the crime, it isn't necessary that "the whole operation had to be planned" in the sense that all the details had to be worked out in advance, or that everything suspicious that happened in Dallas that day was part of a carefully orchestrated plan.

The assassination itself would have taken a certain amount of planning. The first element seems relatively trivial: shooting someone who is travelling in a slow-moving open-topped car. The second element might have required some co-ordination with law enforcement in Dallas: making sure that the shooters got away undetected.

Connecting the killing with the Soviet or Cuban regimes need be done only by implicating one person, who had plausible ties with those regimes, in the crime. As it turned out, this involved the discovery of a rifle at the scene of the crime which could plausibly be linked to an apparently Castro-supporting former defector to the Soviet Union. Whether or not the apparent owner of the rifle turned up for work that day, or wherever he happened to be at the time of the shooting, he would be implicated, and so would the regimes with which he apparently sympathised.

This would require the assistance of someone at the TSBD, and of one or more people within the Dallas police. But it wouldn't require the TSBD to "have been a CIA front". Even getting the patsy a job in the building needn't have been carefully worked out in advance; that particular patsy's involvement could have been a happy coincidence. If the patsy's job offer was orchestrated, it would only require one insider at the TSBD to have been involved, and that insider need not have known why he was being told to employ that person.

If there was a lot of planning in the assassination, it might have involved the setting up of several possible patsies, using several methods of assassination, at several points along the route of the motorcade. If that happened, we'd never know about those patsies because the circumstances meant that they couldn't be used or weren't needed. Presumably any unused patsies remained unaware of their narrow escape.

There's no need to think up complicated scenarios to account for the other events of that day. Officer Tippit's murder might have been entirely unrelated to the assassination. Oswald might have gone to the movies to occupy some time before meeting Marina and Ruth at one of the nearby shoe shops. Of course, these events may have been planned as part of the assassination, but there's no need to assume that they were. A simpler explanation is available.

The same applies to the possible impersonations of Oswald in Dallas. It's not unlikely that one or more of them actually were part of a plan, but there's no need to assume that any of them, let alone all of them, were. It's common for big news stories to general false sightings of the central characters.

Too many JFK assassination enthusiasts feel the need to create complex and implausible all-encompassing theories that try to give an explanation for every anomalous detail. There's no need to do so. You don't need presidential body-snatching squads, or long-term doppelganger schemes, or teams of CIA agents roaming the country, seizing and altering all the films and photos from Dealey Plaza.

The simpler the explanation, the more likely it is to be correct, and the more likely it is to convince open-minded members of the public.

Edited September 22, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrected a typo

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Now, back to Prayer Man. Pat Speer writes:

Quote

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.

According to Bart Kamp, who was shown the film (or at least a film):

Quote

Moreover his so called first gen copy was nothing more than a dodgy copy that was sandwiched in between other snippets of footage that were compiled in a newsreel. The whole thing stank....
(https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t587p800-prayer-man#39837)

Bart thinks that the film he saw had been doctored in some way, and was not a super-duper quality version, as Pat claims. Are Bart and Pat talking about the same incident, and the same film?

If so, the decision not to buy the film was not because of any disappointment that the film debunked the identification of Prayer Man as Oswald.

As far as I can tell, there is still a reasonable possibility that a copy of a film exists that might show Oswald standing in the doorway of the book depository when he should have been on the sixth floor.

Given the enormous effect that such a discovery would have, there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to work towards getting that copy out into public circulation. The worst that could happen is that a few people would have to wipe a bit of egg from their faces if the figure is definitively identified as someone other than Oswald.

The question now is: what's the best way to get the film into public circulation?

[Gil Jesus]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We know from the Mexico City charade that the goal of the plotters (besides getting rid of soft-on-commies traitor JFK) was to have Cuba and Russia blamed for the killing. In order to do that, they needed to provide a trail for the FBI investigators to follow, from the shooting back to the Cubans and Russians. That is what Oswald was for.

The FBI quickly got word after the shooting that Lee Oswald had been in touch with KGB agents in Mexico City, one being chief of assassinations. So at first the FBI thought that the Cubans and Russians were sponsoring the assassination, and that Oswald was involved.

Someone in the Johnson Administration realized that this was going to lead to an international incident, likely a war. So they nipped that in the bud and said Oswald alone was to blame. That was the start of the government cover-up.

In order to blame Oswald, the government had to fabricate documents showing that he had bought the rifle.

I don't know what Oswald's instructions were, but clearly he was supposed to meet someone in the theater.

Once you figure out the above, a lot of things become clear. It was an intelligence operation, of course. The evidence indicates it was a CIA operation.

 

 

I can agree with the part that he was supposed to meet someone there. Wasn't there a witness in the theater who claimed that Oswald was moving from seat-to-seat sitting next to people ? Isn't this what an intel operative would do ? Sit next to someone, say a phrase and expect that person to answer with another phrase ? Then if that person doesn't answer with the correct phrase, he moves on to the next person ? Sounds plausible to me.

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

Does that front door open by pushing in, or only by pulling out as per the top pic?

Tony:

it could be swung both ways.

[Ron Ege]

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Can you be more specific, Ron? Do you mean specifically the false flag operation I posted above? If not, can you give an example of what you mean?

And what do you mean by "believe in?" Are you asking if Oswald would believe the false flag operation would achieve its goal? Are you asking if Oswald would trust the plotters, that the false flag operation wouldn't implicate him?

 

Sandy, thanks.

Yes, your false flag example.

Yes, to goal, trust, and implication.

[Sean Coleman]

7 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Sean:

you certainly have a valid point. There are two possibilities of why it was possible for Lee Oswald to be out and photographed. One plausible theory is along the line presented in The Second Plot (Matthew Smith, 2002; available on Amazon) which says that Lee Oswald was only aware of the "second" plot which was to get to Red Bird airfield on Friday afternoon and be flown to Cuba for his another mission, as a continuation of his New Orleans-Mexico City activities aimed against Castro. He was told that JFK's visit will be a welcome distraction allowing him to depart from Red Bird airfield unnoticed. Larry Hancock and David Boylan did subsequent amazing research on the Red Bird part. There is another possibility, maybe a less likely one, that Lee Oswald participated in a mock assassination attempt and was told to lend his rifle which would temporarily drive attention to a pro-Castro sympathiser, allowing to break the war against Cuba. However, he was also told that he could always prove his innocence by being provably somewhere else than on the sixth floor. Only after hearing (witnessing) the shooting did Lee realise he was in big trouble and became to behave like a fugitive. I may be wrong, however, the moment he learned about JFK's killing could be the moment in Darnell when he was standing at the western wall and the lady with a dark scarf (Gloria Calvary) approached the doorway and told everyonene what she had seen. It would explain Prayer Man's gaze orientated toward Elm/Houston street, seen in the critical Darnell still. Prayer Man was not exploring the scene around Grassy Knoll or Tripple Underpass like everyone else in the doorway because he already knew enough, and he was now thinking what he should do next.

I do not know which of the two scenarios would be more plausible, and I am currently willing to admit either as an explanation for Lee being out and photographed. What would you think?

 

Andrej, as there are so many credible theories about all aspects of the JFKA, sometimes it’s hard to decide which one to subscribe to- for me it’s gut instinct till proven otherwise!

With Prayerman I think there’s only two possibilities-it’s LHO, or it isn’t (obviously..!).

My thoughts…..If it is, he was on a loose leash that day and was to be found guilty by association and eliminated. But then he would be an associate to the crime-not the Patsy McScapegoat- and surely others would be involved and needed to be rounded up to satisfy the public? 
 

If it isn’t him, he’s on the second floor, staying out of the way as instructed, with the big LHO legend machine revving up,ready to destroy him. All evidence pointed to him, he was to be apprehended (at the theatre?) in time and silenced.

What I’m still unsure about is  Tippit. Why was he killed if Oswald was already “guilty”and ready to be apprehended? And….if Pman is Oswald, BWF not noticing his buddy stood next to him? WTF?

Mi extrementi  puzzlemento.

 

[Andrej Stancak]

47 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

And….if Pman is Oswald, BWF not noticing his buddy stood next to him? WTF?

My take on Mr Buell Frazier is that he saw Lee next to him but was completely, and irrationally from a neutral standpoint, overwhelmed by his situation which was aggravated by his proneness to a post-traumatic stress disorder reaction. He understood that he never could say that Lee stood next to him in the doorway. Basically, Lee  standing next to him was even a bigger problem than the curtain rod story. At this stage, he speaks the truth as he sees it through his coarted memories related to this event. 

While I cannot prove anything, I carry a nagging intuition that there was perhaps something even more sinister than the curtain rods or Lee standing next to him that has caused Mr Frazier's emotional breakdown after the shots rang out.   

 

[Andrew Prutsok]

On 9/20/2022 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

How about because they looked at the photo and, like most of us, saw enough of a resemblance to Oswald to warrant further investigation? What's unusual about that?

So they were afraid he was telling them the truth?

[Andrew Prutsok]

On 9/20/2022 at 11:35 PM, Pat Speer said:

They didn't. The story that it was Oswald in the Altgens popped up weeks later, not that evening. 

I'd appreciate it if you could provide the source on this. It was a big factor in my believing Prayerman is Oswald. I've seen this stated many times and never saw any push back on it. Here's a thread from 2015 in which both Linda Giovanna Zambonni and Jon G. Tidd make the assertion and there is no pushback from anyone. It's on page 4 of this thread: