Jump to content
The Education Forum

PrayerPerson ???


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Then why did BWF insist that LHO's "curtain rods package could not have been the rifle/rifle bag due to its size? It is an absolutely vital piece of the Warren Commission narrative

You are convinced there was a package, just the dimensions are in dispute, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Had Oswald taken that as meaning "at the time of the shooting" then his reply would have meant, "naturally, as an employee in the building I would have been inside the building at the time of the shooting." Which makes no sense. Why would his being an employee in the building mean he was inside during the shooting?

Clearly Oswald took "at the time" as meaning "that day."

We believe that the reporter meant at the time of the shooting. But Oswald obviously didn't understand it that way.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Then why did BWF insist that LHO's "curtain rods package could not have been the rifle/rifle bag due to its size?

 

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

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

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

 

I used sound logic to prove my point. I suggest you don't dramatize something you don't understand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Pat,

The reporter didn't ask Oswald if he was in the building at the time of the shooting, He asked if has in the building "at the time."

Had Oswald taken that as meaning "at the time of the shooting" then his reply would have meant, "naturally, as an employee in the building I would have been inside the building at the time of the shooting." Which makes no sense. Why would his being an employee in the building mean he was inside during the shooting?

Clearly Oswald took "at the time" as meaning "that day."

We believe that the reporter meant at the time of the shooting. But Oswald obviously didn't understand it that way.

 

OR... Oswald was trying to point out that his being inside the building (at the time of the shooting) was no big deal, seeing as he worked there.

This is like one million times more likely. 

Neither Oswald nor anyone in that hallway was wondering if Oswald was at work that day. They were wondering where he was when the shots were fired. So he told them. 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Wes Frazier goes, we have to recognize a couple of facts. His story has been consistent all along, and I trust that he's telling the truth about not CONSCIOUSLY seeing Oswald on the TSBD steps.

The possibility exists that when Frazier was on the steps, he was more conscious of the people standing in front of him than the people standing to the side of him. Frazier doesn't say that Oswald was never on the steps. He states the truth, that he doesn't remember seeing Oswald there.

Think back to any situation when you were in a group of people viewing a major event. Since the event itself occupies the major portion of your memory, can you recall EVERY person standing near you? Are you SURE? I've witnessed incidents myself in which, when I start to name the people standing near me whom I knew, I leave someone out. WHY? Because I simply can't remember seeing them there. And I think this is what Frazier is saying, simply that he doesn't remember seeing Oswald there.

So Frazier is simply being honest when he says he didn't see Oswald on the steps.

IF -- big if -- Prayer Person/Prayer Man IS eventually confirmed to have been Oswald, Frazier's words are still true: he didn't [CONSCIOUSLY] see Oswald there on the steps. And if PM is NOT Oswald, Frazier still has told the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Neither Oswald nor anyone in that hallway was wondering if Oswald was at work that day. They were wondering where he was when the shots were fired. So he told them. 

 

It doesn't matter what they were all wondering. All that matters is what Oswald was saying. And he certainly wasn't saying that naturally he was inside the building during the shooting given that he was employee. That doesn't make any sense. Though it does make sense if you remove the "during the shooting" part.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

And what, praytell, would be the logical reason for Frazier to be told to lie about Oswald on the steps but not about the package?

 

Because there weren't teams of FBI agents poring over the statements of witnesses, comparing them with a well scripted final version of the "official story," and drawing up plans on how certain witness were to be instructed to say certain things.

Were the people working on the "Oswald on the TSBD steps" issue even the same as those working on the "paper bag" issue?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Does anybody recall that?

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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

Does anybody recall that?

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

 

Yes, in recent years, Frazier has added in that he saw Oswald walking down the street from the back of the building after the shooting. He's probably incorrect. That his story changed a bit is not the least bit surprising, moreover. As you know, I devote a lot of my website to witness statements. And just about every witness who told their story multiple times over multiple years changed their story a bit. Sometimes they were clarifying or adding on to something they'd previously alluded to, but sometimes they'd flat out changed it, from hearing two shots to hearing three shots, etc. It's not suspicious. It's just being human. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Because there weren't teams of FBI agents poring over the statements of witnesses, comparing them with a well scripted final version of the "official story," and drawing up plans on how certain witness were to be instructed to say certain things.

Were the people working on the "Oswald on the TSBD steps" issue even the same as those working on the "paper bag" issue?

 

So...are you saying that the hand-written statements provided the Sheriff's Dept. on the afternoon of the shooting are fakes, scripted by a team of FBI agents, to conceal that Oswald was on the front steps? 

Well, who exactly was on this team? Saying a team of unidentified FBI agents supervised a cover-up within a few hours of the shooting is like saying a team of former football players supervised a cover-up within a few hours of the shooting...

There's just not evidence for it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So...are you saying that the hand-written statements provided the Sheriff's Dept. on the afternoon of the shooting are fakes, scripted by a team of FBI agents, to conceal that Oswald was on the front steps? 

 

Documents can be altered. That sort of thing happens in cover-ups.

Do you believe there was no cover-up Pat?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...