Prayer Man

[Guest]

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

For the second time, Greg has started a thread at the ROKC forum focused on doddering old me. Since I'm barely hanging on here and don’t want to join another JFK forum, I’m responding indirectly to Greg here for the second time.

Greg was kind enough to say that he agrees with much of what I post here about the sheer nuttiness of much conspiracy theorizing. Likewise, I regard Greg as one of the serious researchers whose books and posts I've enjoyed.

Someone at ROKC apparently noticed my offhand comment that I was “pretty much 1000% certain” that Prayer Man will go “poof” if and when the original Darnell and Wiegman films are obtained.

Obviously, I’m not 1000% certain, 100% certain, or even certain at all. This was a jocular comment, just making the point that I’m completely willing to re-join the ranks of conspiracy theorists if and when convincing evidence surfaces. Oswald as Prayer Man is at the extreme of unlikeliness, IMHO. But by God, if Prayer Man could be proved to be Oswald I’d do an immediate 180-degree about-face. For that reason, I certainly hope the originals of Darnell and Wiegman can be obtained and will settle the issue once and for all.

I've seen, I think, pretty much everything relating to Prayer Man, including the work of Andrej and others here. It just makes no sense to me from the standpoint of logic. This was the basis of my "1000% certain" comment. If Prayer Man proves to be Oswald, I'll be 1000% gobsmacked and happy to admit it.

If Oswald was the designated patsy, what possible sense would it make for him to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination? Sandy’s explanation – this was such an in-your-face conspiracy that the sixth-floor patsy was standing on the steps of the TSBD as a “message” about the conspirators’ “power” (i.e., they didn't even care if the patsy was exposed) – strikes me as beyond-the-pale goofy. Is there an even semi-plausible explanation?

In Oswald’s post-assassination interactions with reporters, Robert, Marina or H. Louis Nichols (the Dallas attorney), why didn't he scream “For God’s sake, I was standing on the steps of the TSBD with Bill Shelley! Other people must’ve seen me! There must be photos! This is ridiculous!” Does the fact he didn’t do this not seem a bit odd? You have an ironclad alibi that may well be corroborated by multiple witnesses or documented on film, but you don’t even mention it?

Instead, we merely have Oswald saying (according to Fritz’s notes and Bookhout’s report) that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front.” It seems from the context (especially Bookhout's report) that Oswald was talking about the time after the assassination. Alas for Oswald, Shelley didn’t corroborate his statement. None of the other occupants of the TSBD steps said, “Yes, I saw Lee standing there.”

Oswald told several preposterous lies during his interrogation, so why would we suppose "out with Bill Shelley in front" was anything different? Are we to suppose Fritz was so deeply involved in the conspiracy that he wouldn’t have immediately attempted to verify Oswald’s statement with potential witnesses or photos? If he was deeply involved, why would he and Bookhout have documented Oswald’s possible alibi in the first place?

It's pure happenstance that the Darnell and Wiegman films aren’t crystal clear or that 20 other bystanders didn’t happen to catch clear images of Prayer Man in films or photographs. It's pure happenstance the figure is deep in shadow. We’re talking about Prayer Man only because the figure is too dark and blurry to  clearly discern. Again, pure happenstance. This seems to me typical of so much conspiracy “evidence” – hey, it might be Oswald and you can’t prove it isn’t! Quite the opposite of actual affirmative evidence. Never mind that conspiracy enthusiasts spent years focusing on the “Oswald” who was obviously Billy Lovelady. Never mind that Prayer Man looks to me and others considerably more like a woman than a man.

In short, my “1000% certain” comment was just an exaggerated way of saying “Oswald as Prayer Man simply makes no sense to me and is contrary to the all the logic I can bring to bear on the subject."

I’m sympathetic to Prayer Man enthusiasts because it will indeed be a flat-out Lone Nut-killer if it is Oswald. For this reason, the time spent on the issue isn’t silly even if I think the likelihood is almost nil. Unlike most conspiracy "evidence," it's one item that at least has the potential for a definitive answer one way or the other.

Because of all I’ve set forth above, showing that it “could be” Oswald goes nowhere. You need to show that, contrary to all logic, it is Oswald. If and when that is accomplished, I will again be a gung-ho conspiracy enthusiast. If it is Oswald, all the reasons I’m now pretty sure it isn’t won’t matter.

It seems to me that, as is typical of so much conspiracy theorizing, the Prayer Man argument is built around the shaky foundation of (1) a dark and blurry image that theoretically could be Oswald or any one of a thousand other people and (2) blind acceptance of “out with Bill Shelley in front” in Fritz’s notes, as though Oswald (a) was definitely talking about the time of the assassination and (b) hadn’t told umpteen other lies during the interrogation. The willingness to accept this foundation, it seems to me, has to be a strong desire for Oswald to be innocent. The logical issues that seem to me to reduce the likelihood to near zero seem to get little attention. Even if I were a Prayer Man devotee, I’d be thinking hard about what possible scenario would have the patsy whose rifle was planted on the sixth floor standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. I would've made sure the patsy was not only on the sixth floor but plainly visible there.
 

Lance,

You don’t seem to have mentioned the thread begun in 2013 in this forum on which Sean Murphy led a discussion presenting the case for Prayer Man being Oswald.

You also don’t seem to have mentioned the handwritten note by FBI agent James Hosty found by Bart Kamp in Malcolm Blunt’s archives of Oswald saying that he went outside to watch the presidential parade.

I say this because by focusing on the photographic image of Prayer Man, which to many including me does look like Oswald, in isolation from the evidence presented in the above mentioned thread and note by Hosty, you might be accused of committing the straw man fallacy.

[Charles Blackmon]

Who is Brian Doyle? Supposedly banned on EF and seems to be hated on ROKC.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Who is Brian Doyle? Supposedly banned on EF and seems to be hated on ROKC.

A researcher who believes the figure known as "Prayer Man" is TSBD employee Sarah Stanton.

[Roger Odisio]

Apparently Greg can't post here so let me respond.  I, of course, do not speak for Greg.

 

If Oswald was the designated patsy, what possible sense would it make for him to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination? Sandy’s explanation – this was such an in-your-face conspiracy that the sixth-floor patsy was standing on the steps of the TSBD as a “message” about the conspirators’ “power” (i.e., they didn't even care if the patsy was exposed) – strikes me as beyond-the-pale goofy. Is there an even semi-plausible explanation?

 

RO:  This is a tricky question.  Oswald didn't know he was the patsy and the perps didn't want him to know (e.g., should he try to flee).  So what should they do?  They planned to kill him at the first opportunity so he couldn't defend himself, which they  probably expected to be during his arrest at the theater.  That didn't happen, but they cleaned that up Sunday morning. In general, they were depending on the climate of intimidation, repression, with an occasional murder thrown in, to keep anyone from coming to the aid of Oswald's story once he was gone.  Once he was killed that became easier. 

 

RO: Consider their attempt to intimidate Frazier the day of the murder with threats of prison If he didn't cooperate (whatever that meant at the time}.  (Do you think they might have already had a pic of Frazier standing next to Oswald on the steps--e.g., they took Altgens 6 that night to ask Lovelady if that figure in front on the steps was him, and get his cooperation).  Most importantly, they had such control of information and the investigation to follow, I think they thought their best choice was to let Oswald continue his workday as normal rather than risk alerting him that something was up.  He wandered out on the steps?  Hey, no one saw him.  He's lying.  Unfortunately, they failed to bury a record of his alibi. 

 

RO:  Their success was clear--no one ever said they saw Oswald on the steps. Most of the employees on the steps probably didn't see him--their backs were turned and he came out late and stayed only a short time--but it's hard to believe Fraziers' story, e.g.

In Oswald’s post-assassination interactions with reporters, Robert, Marina or H. Louis Nichols (the Dallas attorney), why didn't he scream “For God’s sake, I was standing on the steps of the TSBD with Bill Shelley! Other people must’ve seen me! There must be photos! This is ridiculous!” Does the fact he didn’t do this not seem a bit odd? You have an ironclad alibi that may well be corroborated by multiple witnesses or documented on film, but you don’t even mention it?

 

RO: This question is similar, but with even less merit, to the oft repeated, why didn't Oswald blurt out his alibi to the reporters in the hallway? Oswald had about 44 hours to live when arrested. He began to suspect he was in serious trouble but he didn't know how little time he had. He was screaming for a lawyer from the moment of his arrest. He understood that was his only path to safety from the jackals coming after him.  He needed to tell his story to a lawyer to get it on the record as a defense.  What good would it do to tell his wife or brother?  What were they going to do with it?  Who paid any attention to them?  Plus it seems he didn't want to get them involved at that point.

 

RO:  Louis Nichols was the head of the Dallas Bar who offered Oswald one of his attorneys. Oswald wanted an ACLU lawyer who might actually defend him (contrast with the lawyer who "defended" Sirhan). He was too smart to take the offer.  But unfortunately he told Nichols if he couldn't find a lawyer he wanted, he'd get back to him on his offer. That sped up his murder even faster. They really couldn't let him talk to a lawyer.

Instead, we merely have Oswald saying (according to Fritz’s notes and Bookhout’s report) that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front.” It seems from the context (especially Bookhout's report) that Oswald was talking about the time after the assassination. Alas for Oswald, Shelley didn’t corroborate his statement. None of the other occupants of the TSBD steps said, “Yes, I saw Lee standing there.”

 

Oswald told several preposterous lies during his interrogation, so why would we suppose "out with Bill Shelley in front" was anything different? Are we to suppose Fritz was so deeply involved in the conspiracy that he wouldn’t have immediately attempted to verify Oswald’s statement with potential witnesses or photos? If he was deeply involved, why would he and Bookhout have documented Oswald’s possible alibi in the first place?

 

RO: You seemed to have missed the notes taken by James Hosty that Bart Kamp discovered a few years ago, that further detail what Oswald said.  Hosty was at the initial interrogation of Oswald and reportedly was the only one who took notes. When asked where he was, Oswald said he had gone to get a coke on the 2nd floor to drink with his lunch on the first floor.  When he finished, he said, he "went outside to watch the P Parade".  Hosty was supposed to destroy his notes but he didn't, possibly in preparation for the book he later wrote. 

 

RO: While on the subject of missed corroboration, you don't mention the four women watching the motorcade from a fourth floor window.  After the  shooting, two of them went down the stairs to see what was happening, the same stairs that Oswald was supposed to have taken.  A third, their supervisor, stayed behind on the fourth floor, and was still there when Truly and Baker, who were supposed to have encountered Oswald on the 2nd floor, reached her.  None of the women saw or heard Oswald.

 

It's pure happenstance that the Darnell and Wiegman films aren’t crystal clear or that 20 other bystanders didn’t happen to catch clear images of Prayer Man in films or photographs. It's pure happenstance the figure is deep in shadow. We’re talking about Prayer Man only because the figure is too dark and blurry to  clearly discern. Again, pure happenstance. This seems to me typical of so much conspiracy “evidence” – hey, it might be Oswald and you can’t prove it isn’t! Quite the opposite of actual affirmative evidence. Never mind that conspiracy enthusiasts spent years focusing on the “Oswald” who was obviously Billy Lovelady. Never mind that Prayer Man looks to me and others considerably more like a woman than a man.

 

RO:  No, we also want to identify Prayerman because the 4th floor women corroborate Oswald's story to the extent he wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.  That remains even if the figure on the steps can't be identified.  Moreover, both films are held by NBC Universal, who has turned out to be a major impediment to the search for truth. A major "news" organization, they are hiding other JFK records as well.  The MFF lawyers are aware of this and have said they will pursue them as part of their suit. That may in fact be the only way this information can be seen.  Confronting NBC Universal is an ancillary benefit of seeking the Darnell and Wiegman films.

In short, my “1000% certain” comment was just an exaggerated way of saying “Oswald as Prayer Man simply makes no sense to me and is contrary to the all the logic I can bring to bear on the subject."

I’m sympathetic to Prayer Man enthusiasts because it will indeed be a flat-out Lone Nut-killer if it is Oswald. For this reason, the time spent on the issue isn’t silly even if I think the likelihood is almost nil. Unlike most conspiracy "evidence," it's one item that at least has the potential for a definitive answer one way or the other.

 

Because of all I’ve set forth above, showing that it “could be” Oswald goes nowhere. You need to show that, contrary to all logic, it is Oswald. If and when that is accomplished, I will again be a gung-ho conspiracy enthusiast. If it is Oswald, all the reasons I’m now pretty sure it isn’t won’t matter.

 

RO:  I think Greg will welcome you aboard.

 

It seems to me that, as is typical of so much conspiracy theorizing, the Prayer Man argument is built around the shaky foundation of (1) a dark and blurry image that theoretically could be Oswald or any one of a thousand other people and (2) blind acceptance of “out with Bill Shelley in front” in Fritz’s notes, as though Oswald (a) was definitely talking about the time of the assassination and (b) hadn’t told umpteen other lies during the interrogation. The willingness to accept this foundation, it seems to me, has to be a strong desire for Oswald to be innocent. The logical issues that seem to me to reduce the likelihood to near zero seem to get little attention. Even if I were a Prayer Man devotee, I’d be thinking hard about what possible scenario would have the patsy whose rifle was planted on the sixth floor standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. I would've made sure the patsy was not only on the sixth floor but plainly visible there.

 

RO:  I think it is unclear as to precisely when Oswald stepped out on the steps.  He wasn't out there long.  It could have been at the time of the shots and a bit after, to be caught by one or both of the films. Or a bit later than that and was missed by the films as the cameras were swung around.  He might have stepped outside to see what the commotion was about too late to be caught by the films So even if Prayerman turns out to be someone else that doesn't necessarily reject Oswald's alibi.   

 

RO:  It's probably better for all concerned if it turns out to be Oswald, don't you think?  Well, except for committed LNers.

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

If Oswald was the designated patsy, what possible sense would it make for him to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination?

 

The CIA plot didn't frame Oswald as a shooter. It set him up as the lead guy of an American assassination team. The pertinent Mexico City evidence (which the Warren Commission covered up but is now available) shows that Oswald had accomplices and that it was he who was paid in the Cuban Consulate for the deed.

Since Oswald wasn't a shooter, he didn't need to be in any particular location during the presidential motorcade. He could even go outside and watch the presidential motorcade if he wanted to. Which he did, according to his interrogation.

It was the Warren Commission, in their coverup, that made Oswald the shooter.

 

18 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Sandy’s explanation – this was such an in-your-face conspiracy that the sixth-floor patsy was standing on the steps of the TSBD as a “message” about the conspirators’ “power” (i.e., they didn't even care if the patsy was exposed) – strikes me as beyond-the-pale goofy. Is there an even semi-plausible explanation?

 

I've never ascribed to this "goofy" explanation that you say was mine.

 

18 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Instead, we merely have Oswald saying (according to Fritz’s notes and Bookhout’s report) that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front.”

 

We also have Hosty's handwritten interrogation note that Oswald went outside to watch the presidential parade.

 

[Guest]

On 1/6/2023 at 6:42 PM, John Cotter said:

I say this because by focusing on the photographic image of Prayer Man, which to many including me does look like Oswald, in isolation from the evidence presented in the above mentioned thread and note by Hosty, you might be accused of committing the straw man fallacy.

Bye

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Steve Roe]

The Prayer-Blob theory is just a wishful fantasy. A researcher friend of mine asked Buell Frazier (who was just a few feet away from Prayer-Blob) and said he didn't see Oswald on the steps. No one else saw Oswald on the steps. 

[Denis Morissette]

PM could have been Oswald only if he had been able to arrive on the steps from the 6th floor where he shot JFK. Had Oswald been on the steps, Frazier would have seen him.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Denis Morissette

[David Von Pein]

If the Prayer Man advocates are correct and Lee Harvey Oswald had truly been innocent of shooting President Kennedy and if Oswald had really been standing on the front steps of the Book Depository Building when JFK was shot, is it truly likely (or reasonable to assume) that he would have just clammed up when he was afforded the perfect opportunity to shout his "I Was On The Front Steps!" alibi to the world when he was asked this specific question by a reporter at 7:55 PM CST on 11/22/63:

Were you in the building at the time [of the assassination]?

Now, if the people who think Oswald is "Prayer Man" are right, then when LHO was confronted with the above question, wouldn't Oswald's logical and likely response have been one that resembled something like this one?:

No sir! I was NOT inside the building at the time the President was being shot! I was OUTSIDE that building at that time! I was standing on the front steps of that building, right next to Buell Wesley Frazier and several other employees of the Depository! Go ask Wesley! He'll tell you I was there!

But instead of Oswald giving the above answer (or one similar to it), what we heard coming from Lee Oswald's mouth when asked "Were you in the building at the time?" was this:

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

Now, maybe it's just a funny little quirk that only I possess, but if I had just been dragged into custody by the police and been charged with TWO murders I never committed (because, as we know, a whole lot of misguided conspiracy theorists are of the opinion that Mr. Oswald was innocent of killing Police Officer J.D. Tippit too), I would be wanting to shout my innocence and my provable alibi to everybody in the world as soon as I could!

But many conspiracists seem to think that Oswald would have wanted to wait and reveal his "On The Steps" alibi only after he had obtained a lawyer.

But is it truly reasonable to think that a person in Oswald's position (if he had been innocent) would have wanted to stay silent about his alibi for two solid days?

And is it also reasonable to think that Oswald would have had a desire to actually tell a lie concerning his alibi to Captain Fritz? Because Fritz said this in his written report:

"I asked him [Lee Oswald] 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." -- Captain J.W. Fritz; Warren Report--Page 600

So no matter how you look at it, the "Oswald Is Prayer Man" theory just does not add up.

Plus: As I've argued in the past, no matter what any desperate conspiracy theorist wants to believe, the steps in front of the TSBD are most certainly NOT located INSIDE the building. More on that topic here.

Also....

"To answer the question about Prayer Man: I have been looking at this all day, and I can tell you this: I 100% have no idea who that person is. I can also tell you 100% that is not Lee Harvey Oswald. First, Lee was not out there. I know that to be true. Second, for anyone who thinks Prayer Man is Lee, the individual has a much larger frame than Lee." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; March 28, 2021

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Matthew Koch]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The CIA plot didn't frame Oswald as a shooter. It set him up as the lead guy of an American assassination team. The pertinent Mexico City evidence (which the Warren Commission covered up but is now available) shows that Oswald had accomplices and that it was he who was paid in the Cuban Consulate for the deed.

Since Oswald wasn't a shooter, he didn't need to be in any particular location during the presidential motorcade. He could even go outside and watch the presidential motorcade if he wanted to. Which he did, according to his interrogation.

It was the Warren Commission, in their coverup, that made Oswald the shooter.

 

 

I've never ascribed to this "goofy" explanation that you say was mine.

 

 

We also have Hosty's handwritten interrogation note that Oswald went outside to watch the presidential parade.

 

Fritz notes say Oswald was in the lunch room with negro employees.. The prayer man is clearly a woman 

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Fritz_Papers.html

 

[John Cotter]

3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

To be clear, my only interest in Prayer Man is the filmed image. It either is or isn't Oswald. If and when it's proved to be, I'll acknowledge the error of my ways. However, you aren't going to reason your way to shadowy Prayer Man being Oswald via other evidence such as Fritz's notes, Hosty's notes or Bookhout's report. Nor is it reasonable to interpret Fritz's and Hosty's notes and Bookhout's report in light of Prayer Man being Oswald. The logical implausibilities are simply too great. A clear image is the only thing that will settle the issue, so focusing on it is scarcely a straw man. Without a clear image, Prayer Man is just another implausible theory among many. "It could be Oswald, and therefore it is." Nope, sorry.

The fact is, the TSBD and the immediate environs were crawling with people who might've seen Oswald eating lunch on the first floor, buying a coke on the second, being somewhere on his way to either location, or being on the steps of the TSBD prior to or at the time of the assassination and thus have given him a solid alibi. No one did. My surmise is that this was because he was on the sixth floor with his rifle. The fact is, his claim to have brought his lunch doesn't withstand scrutiny. The fact is, his actions after the assassination are far more consistent with guilt than innocence. The fact is, at no time did he express to anyone other than Fritz, Hosty or Bookhout, such as his wife, mother, brother or the press, the Prayer Man alibi that conspiracy theorists attribute to him, which seems exceedingly unlikely to me.

As always, conspiracy theorists seize on minor inconsistencies in documents and recollections to weave a conspiracy scenario in which pretty much everyone had nefarious motives. This just isn't what real-world conspiracies look like. For God's sake, this was a completely unanticipated, catastrophic event of the first magnitude during a noon-hour motorcade in a crowded public square. I'm not surprised in the slightest that pretty much everyone was running around like a chicken with his head cut off. From a Lone Nut perspective, Fritz's and Hosty's notes and Bookhout's report don't trouble me in the slightest, nor do I believe they make the shadowy figure of Prayer Man more likely to be Oswald. (Again I ask, if Fritz, Hosty and Bookhout were up to anything nefarious, why would they have mentioned Oswald's claim to have been out in front with Shelley at all? Once again, geniuses at step 1, idiots at step 2.)

Oswald told preposterous lies during his interrogation. At some point, he obviously did exit the TSBD. I'm confident he did say something about being out in front with Shelley as the notes reflect. At this point, logic and reason tell me he was actually on the sixth floor with his rifle. If a clear image proves me wrong, then logic and reason will have failed me and I'll be happy to admit as much. Hence, insofar as Prayer Man is concerned, my only interest is in the image.

If you want to insist that the shadowy Prayer Man image, together with Fritz's and Hosty's notes and Bookhout's report (and the other items Greg cites) make it more likely than not that Prayer Man is Oswald, I'm simply going to disagree. The evidence as a whole tells me Oswald was on the sixth floor with his rifle, and the Prayer Man theory is just too weak and riddled with implausibilities. Hence, to repeat, my only interest is in the image - in who it is, not who it might be or could be.

 

You still haven’t mentioned the seminal 2013 thread in this forum where Sean Murphy led a discussion making the case for Prayer Man being Oswald. (See also in this regard Stan Dane’s 2015 book Prayer Man.)

As I suggested in my previous post, that case does not depend on the photographic images alone. It depends on those images ­and the logical examination of an accumulation of circumstantial evidence, which I understand is standard practice in criminal law cases.

In still not addressing that case and instead focusing on the photographic images in isolation from it, you appear to be straw-manning.

Edited January 7, 2023 by John Cotter

[Sandy Larsen]

28 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Fritz notes say Oswald was in the lunch room with negro employees..

 

After which he said he went outside to watch the presidential parade. James Hosty's handwritten interrogation notes.

 

28 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

The prayer man is clearly a woman 

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Fritz_Papers.html

 

 

You apparently don't know that that video is a joke, made for those who think Prayer Man is 300 lb Sarah Stanton. Watch the last couple minutes.

 

[Guest]

On 1/7/2023 at 2:08 PM, John Cotter said:

You still haven’t mentioned the 2013 thread in this forum where Sean Murphy led a discussion making the case for Prayer Man being Oswald. (See also in this regard Stan Dane’s 2015 book Prayer Man.)

As I suggested in my previous post, that case does not depend on the photographic images alone. It depends on those images ­and the logical examination of an accumulation of circumstantial evidence, which I understand is standard practice in criminal law cases.

In still not addressing that case and instead focusing on the photographic images in isolation from it, you appear to be straw-manning.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Roger Odisio]

6 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Prayer Man is the image. That's what Prayer Man means. The image is my only interest. If the Prayer Man image is Oswald, that's a huge problem for the Lone Nut position.

This thread was not my effort at a general Prayer Man discussion. I was explaining to Greg what I meant by my "1000% certain" remark.

I have read Sean Murphy's thread and pretty much everything else. I don't care about ancillary "evidence" that conspiracists think makes it "more likely" that Prayer Man may be Oswald. I care only about the issue of whether the Prayer Man image is Oswald.

No ancillary speculation is going to convince me Prayer Man is Oswald or even make me take the subject seriously. If the image is clearly shown to be Oswald, to my utter astonishment, I will be forced to take it seriously.

You care only about whether the *image* is Oswald because you have made up your mind about the *issue* of where Oswald was at the time of the shooting and are unwilling to reconsider it, except on that one, narrow ground.  Reconsidering it, that is, with your fingers crossed, no doubt, that the figure isn't Oswald, which would upset everything you have said or done in the past.  It's a nice gamble and at least allows you to claim an open mind about something, however false that impression is.

Which is one reason you ignored my explanation that the women on the stairs prove that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor (see Barry Ernest, The Girl on the Stairs if you haven't read it).  Another reason is you can't refute it. 

Then you ignored the rest of my response in favor of simply repeating your assertions.

Thanks, anyway, for such a clear explanation of how I wasted my time responding to you thinking you might be interested in exploring the ultimate issue of who killed JFK and why.  I will know better if there is a next time.