PrayerPerson ???

[Guest]

On Altgens 6 :  Cumberland Evening Times, edition Dec 3, 1963, Edition, page 2,  article : "Pictured man is not killer" is one of the earlier.   The newspapers had picked up the story from Associated Press (employer of Altgens) in Dallas.    Example APWIRE- / photo) (s21930) 1963; on verso, by unknown hand, top right in graphite: 45a; upper center stamped in red ink on applied newspaper: TUE DEC 3-1963 *

Some say the FBI showed Truly Altgens 6 some 2 days after the shooting, I can not confirm that.   And the man behing the door, I don't know when that came up

* https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.200787.html

Edited September 22, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Pat Speer]

12 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

E.g. Cumberland Evening Times, edition Dec 3, 1963, Edition, page 2,  article : "Pictured man is not killer" is one of the earlier.   The newspapers had picked up the story from Associated Press (employer of Altgens) in Dallas.

 

 

 

 

I was wrong. The FBI was told about the photo on 11-25-63, and contacted Truly, who told them it was Lovelady. They then showed it to Lovelady, who confirmed the ID. They followed up once again after a magazine published the photo. At that point they talked to Shelley. These reports are in CD 385. 

(12-2-63 FBI report on an investigation performed 11-25-63, CD385, p.8) "Mr. Billy Nolan Lovelady, 7722 Hume, Dallas, Texas, was exhibited an Associated Press photograph described as "DN 5, 11/22/63, Dallas, Texas," depicting an individual standing in the entrance of the TSBD who resembled Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Lovelady advised that he is an employee at the TSBD and is acquainted with Oswald. Lovelady immediately identified himself in the above-described photograph as being the individual who resembled OSWALD and stated he had observed himself previously in this photograph in the newspaper and was saving it. Lovelady stated there who was no question whatsoever but that this was a photograph of him."

[Andrew Prutsok]

To me, it still makes no sense why authorities would care whether it was Billy Lovelady on the front steps in Altgens 6 (even a couple days later) if Oswald never claimed to be out on the steps watching the parade with Bill Shelley. Why would they care whether it was Lovelady or not?

[Andrej Stancak]

10 minutes ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

To me, it still makes no sense why authorities would care whether it was Billy Lovelady on the front steps in Altgens 6 (even a couple days later) if Oswald never claimed to be out on the steps watching the parade with Bill Shelley. Why would they care whether it was Lovelady or not?

The authorities were scared of the possibility that Lee Oswald was outside during the time of assassination and photographed. That would ruin their case completely, right on that day. The FBI visited Lovelady either on Friday or Saturday night with a very large copy of Altgens6,  and wanted Lovelady to confirm his identity which he did. They came because one of the FBI agents felt unseasy about Lee being in the doorway. So, now the FBI could claim that yes, there were rumours of Lee Oswald being photographed in the doorway, however, this has been resolved and the man in question was Lovelady, he himself has self-identified. The problems is that that FBI agent who heard something, purportedly from a witness, might have felt uneasy about a a different person in the doorway and a different photograph, not about the clear and obvious Lovelady in Altgens6.  

Edited September 22, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrew Prutsok]

3 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

The authorities were scared of the possibility that Lee Oswald was outside during the time of assassination and photographed. 

So he obviously told them during his interrogation that's where he was during the shooting.

[Andrej Stancak]

9 minutes ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

So he obviously told them during his interrogation that's where he was during the shooting.

It seems to be the case. The law enforcement wanted to check if there was any photographic evidence of Lee being outside. Notably, Darnell film and particularly the identity of Prayer Man question only popped up some 50 years after the fact. Neither the Warren Commission nor the HSCA were shown the still with Prayer Man.

Edited September 22, 2022 by Andrej Stancak

[Pat Speer]

47 minutes ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

To me, it still makes no sense why authorities would care whether it was Billy Lovelady on the front steps in Altgens 6 (even a couple days later) if Oswald never claimed to be out on the steps watching the parade with Bill Shelley. Why would they care whether it was Lovelady or not?

The photo was brought to their attention and they decided to follow up on it by asking Truly who it was, and then Lovelady. When you read through the FBI's files, you find that a number of their reports were spurred by someone calling them or alerting them to a situation. In this case, they were told that someone in a photo looked like Oswald and they followed up on it. There is no mystery about it. 

As to why they would follow up if Oswald hadn't said anything... That was their job. I don't think they were trying to prove his innocence. It seems clear their concern from day one was that the American people would suspect a conspiracy, and they tried to shut down such talk wherever they could.  When the Oswald was in Altgens story caught fire months later, they could announce that they'd already looked into it, and ruled it out. 

While some say the FBI tried to cover up that James Tague was wounded, for that matter. their interview with him was right there in the files provided the Warren Commission. It was the WC staff that tried to ignore Tague, not the FBI. 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Andrew Prutsok]

Thanks for the responses. 

[Andrej Stancak]

53 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

I still don't understand this logic. BWF is not allowed to say that he stood next to Oswald in the doorway.....but he is allowed to say that he thinks he is innocent? Whether you believe it is by coercion or from some kind of ptsd that is compelling him to stay quiet, Frazier really hasn't done a great job of staying quiet. He says he believes Oswald is innocent, and has insisted essentially that the whole deus ex machina that the WC used to place Oswald with the rifle and transporting it to the 6th floor (the curtain rods story) is bogus by staying consistent on the length of the supposed package. And yet we are to believe that when he emphatically states that it was certainly not Oswald in the doorway next to him, that is concealment, whether purposeful or not. I just don't buy it.

Yes, it is one of Mr Frazier dissonanancies to say publicly he believes Lee was innocent but to incriminate him with a package which could somehow be a rifle, by denying that Lee brought a lunch with him to work on Friday morning, and denying he had seen him leaving the Depository after assassination. I do not blame him for not saying Lee stood next to him in the doorway for a short period of time because that would put him into direct conflict with the the deepest echelons of political power that wanted Lee to be the assassin. Mr Frazier was and still is scared to death to be in opposition to the power structures. Saying Lee was innocent is benign, it is only an opinion, and many American citizen said so. Saying Lee stood next to me and he was therefore innocent would refute the whole official story by an irrefutable proof of innocence. The strengths of just proclaimig innocence and testifying in a way refuting the official version is a very different situation.

[Roger Odisio]

That's pretty easily explained, Miles.  When Frazier has said at various times in recent years that the package Oswald carried that day couldn't have been a rifle or he thinks Oswald is innocent, what has happened (to the extent some people even know he said those things)?  Nothing.  Both are just his opinions.  It helps him sell his book.  Few care (I'm one of them).

But if he now says:  That *was* Oswald standing next to me.  I knew it, but have been afraid to say it all these years because....  That would be a very different kettle of fish.  Especially in conjunction with the Hosty note and Darnell if it can be clarified.  The MSM will try to ignore all of this but that might not be enough to keep the WR story from finally blowing up.  Maybe even leading to a real inquiry of what happened.

In any case, Frazier's opinions and an ID of Oswald that day are two things of vastly different importance.  To say nothing of different consequences for Frazier himself.  You can't use what you believe to Frazier's honesty in offering some opinions that change nothing to conclude he therefore must also be truthful in the vital matter of who that was beside him.

 

[Pat Speer]

49 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

I still don't understand this logic. BWF is not allowed to say that he stood next to Oswald in the doorway.....but he is allowed to say that he thinks he is innocent? Whether you believe it is by coercion or from some kind of ptsd that is compelling him to stay quiet, Frazier really hasn't done a great job of staying quiet. He says he believes Oswald is innocent, and has insisted essentially that the whole deus ex machina that the WC used to place Oswald with the rifle and transporting it to the 6th floor (the curtain rods story) is bogus by staying consistent on the length of the supposed package. And yet we are to believe that when he emphatically states that it was certainly not Oswald in the doorway next to him, that is concealment, whether purposeful or not. I just don't buy it.

It goes beyond Frazier's assessment of the bag size, moreover. The FBI matched up the paper used to make the bag with paper that was changed every few days. This proved that for Oswald to have made the bag, he would have to have taken the paper to Irving on the 21st. The first time I talked to Frazier in 2014, I told him that I'd worked in warehouses and had some experience with shipping paper. And I told him I had serious doubts someone could smuggle a piece of paper the size of the bag home on his person without someone else noticing. At this point, his eyes got big. Evidently, no one had ever explained this to him before--that the paper used to make the bag would have to have been transported to Irving on the 21st. He then blurted out "That did not happen!" 

So it goes beyond Frazier's assessment of the size of the bag. Frazier has also gone on record stating as a fact that Oswald did not bring any shipping paper home on the 21st with which he could make the bag. 

So why didn't he tell this to the WC? Well, he was never asked about this, at least not on the record. It's quite telling, IMO, that the day before Frazier was interviewed an ongoing dispute within the WC's staff came to a head, and Warren Commission counsel Joe Ball prevailed in his determination to question witnesses off the record, and avoid problematic questions if possible on the record. Frazier has long said Ball repeatedly tried to trick him into saying the bag he saw was the size of the bag in evidence. We can suspect then he was also asked something about the trip out to Irving, and if Oswald had been carrying any paper with him, and that this did not make the cut. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I was wrong. The FBI was told about the photo on 11-25-63, and contacted Truly, who told them it was Lovelady. They then showed it to Lovelady, who confirmed the ID. They followed up once again after a magazine published the photo. At that point they talked to Shelley. These reports are in CD 385. 

(12-2-63 FBI report on an investigation performed 11-25-63, CD385, p.8) "Mr. Billy Nolan Lovelady, 7722 Hume, Dallas, Texas, was exhibited an Associated Press photograph described as "DN 5, 11/22/63, Dallas, Texas," depicting an individual standing in the entrance of the TSBD who resembled Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Lovelady advised that he is an employee at the TSBD and is acquainted with Oswald. Lovelady immediately identified himself in the above-described photograph as being the individual who resembled OSWALD and stated he had observed himself previously in this photograph in the newspaper and was saving it. Lovelady stated there who was no question whatsoever but that this was a photograph of him."

Thanks !  👍

 

[Chris Davidson]

14 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris:

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

Andrej,

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

16 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

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. 

I think it's pretty obvious that you're making such statements while your tongue is being firmly planted in either your left or right cheek.

😁

Edited September 23, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

So he [LHO] obviously told them during his interrogation that's where he was during the shooting.

Obviously not. Because if Oswald had said to Fritz (et al) that he was outside on the steps at the time of the shooting, that key information would most certainly have shown up in the official reports of multiple people who were present to hear Oswald's statements during the interrogations (e.g., the reports of Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, Kelley, and Holmes).

Instead, we have this:

"I [Captain Fritz] asked him [LHO] what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor." [Warren Report; Page 600]

And this:

"Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building." [Hosty/Bookhout 11/22/63 joint report; WCR, Page 613]