A Problem with "Prayer Man"

[Leslie Sharp]

A response to Greg Parker's recent remarks regarding Albarelli's last investigation, "Coup in Dallas."


Greg,

You'll note from the relevant datebook entries that Lafitte doesn't reveal Oswald's mode of transportation from New Orleans to Mexico City, only that he meets Tom Davis at Hotel Luma.
 

I understood you to say that someone who knew MC well was a suspect in the machinations to implicate Oswald as having been there on the alleged dates, so I offered a prime candidate — Tom Davis.
 

We make no claim that Davis traveled on a bus with LHO, nor do we rely on "two girls" or other eyewitnesses who insisted later that they encountered or remembered seeing the Oswald who was arrested on November 22 for the shooting of Tippit.
 

Lafitte's MC entries also comport with information Hank gleaned during interviews with June Cobb and with Tom's wife Carolyn. Hank writes in Coup, 'The coincidental timing of June Cobb spotting Davis at the Hotel Luma — managed by her good friend Warren Broglie — may be explained by Carolyn's simple comment that she recognized Lee Harvey Oswald as having been "at a hotel thing" with her husband.
 

Neither does Lafitte reveal whether Bowen [Albert Osborne] and Hudson [John Wilson] were already in Mexico or if they traveled together or separately by auto, plane, or bus. He doesn't mention Bowen/Osborne as having been on a bus with Oswald although many researchers accept the itinerant preacher was on that bus. It should be noted that on September 22, Lafitte makes a notation "Oswald - Mex city" and beneath he writes, "Gaudet."
 

***

Of interest to any who have studied Major Ganis's "The Skorzeny Papers" and the significance of Otto's business deals with Texas independent oilmen, especially Algur H. Meadows pivotal to the Madrid oil scheme, we conclude that Lafitte's September 27 entry "Algur" is reference to Algur H. of Dallas-based General American Oil. That entry includes "Ilya" who we conclude was Mamantov, the Russian speaking oil industry expert who translated on behalf of Marina the afternoon of 11.22.63 at the behest of Jack Crichton of Empire Trust. Crichton, vital to the success of the Skorzeny/Meadows operation in Spain with the blessing of Franco, also appears in the datebook on critical dates as does his good friend and fellow intel officer in the 488th, Col. Frank "Brandy" Brandstetter.

 

***

 

With respect to the oft-cited Hitler Diaries analogy, most will remember the battle you faced when you and your team first argued that a blurry photo of a man resembling Lee Oswald standing outside the book depository building represented concrete evidence Oswald could not have been positioned in the sniper's nest as Kennedy's limo made its way down Elm. I experienced first hand the initial attitudes of Prayer Man advocates — "take it or leave it" — toward any who questioned the "authenticity" or significance of the blurred photo. That attitude morphed into a more aggressive and dare I say rude "take no prisoners" approach by some in your camp. Somewhat ironic, Hank's attitude was similar — take the Lafitte datebook or leave it — until he was eventually persuaded by the Australian documentary producer that the actual authentication process would provide a persuasive backdrop to the six-part documentary of his breakthrough investigation which was under contract. In late 2018, Hank arranged to take possession of the physical instrument and initiated authentication in London where the production company began filming. That footage is in the can, somewhere.

***
 

Admittedly I've not kept up with advances in photo analysis but I assume by now you have a peer reviewed report produced by a qualified photo examiner or better, a team of experts — the equivalent of authentication of a document — to advance your hypothesis. If so, kudos for your perseverance. I trust you're keenly aware of the obstacles, including significant expense, of such endeavors so I hope you respect that we're also in this for the long haul.

And for the record, Hank anticipated as many slings and arrows as have been lobbed at you and others (some of whom appear in this email list) in similar situations over the years, so on his behalf, we take no offence personally.
 

I am, however, certain Hank wouldn't have anticipated the complete lack of curiosity we've encountered in certain seasoned researchers and authors. I think he would ask what happened to the objective approach — essential to any investigator worth their salt — to the possibility Lafitte left us with an incredibly accurate record of the plot as it unfolded? Skepticism is healthy and "wait and see" is understandable, but some in the community appear to have become utterly jaded and simply refuse out of hand to consider his last investigation, "Coup in Dallas." Perhaps there is an element of professional jealousy that he stumbled onto the Lafitte material, or perhaps some are (understandably) tired and simply haven't the energy to wrestle with the 180 degree turn in the investigation.

***

Now that we're certain Oswald's role in Otto Skorzeny's strategy to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas was that of the designated patsy just as he insisted, the question remains: could Oswald be spotted — not to mention photographed standing outside the depository building at the moment shots were fired — and still be effective?

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

45 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Now that we're certain Oswald's role in Otto Skorzeny's strategy to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas was that of the designated patsy just as he insisted, the question remains: could Oswald be spotted — not to mention photographed standing outside the depository building at the moment shots were fired — and still be effective?

"Now that we're certain" ? You're joking, right?

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

A response to Greg Parker's recent remarks regarding Albarelli's last investigation, "Coup in Dallas."


Greg,

You'll note from the relevant datebook entries that Lafitte doesn't reveal Oswald's mode of transportation from New Orleans to Mexico City, only that he meets Tom Davis at Hotel Luma.
 

I understood you to say that someone who knew MC well was a suspect in the machinations to implicate Oswald as having been there on the alleged dates, so I offered a prime candidate — Tom Davis.
 

We make no claim that Davis traveled on a bus with LHO, nor do we rely on "two girls" or other eyewitnesses who insisted later that they encountered or remembered seeing the Oswald who was arrested on November 22 for the shooting of Tippit.
 

Lafitte's MC entries also comport with information Hank gleaned during interviews with June Cobb and with Tom's wife Carolyn. Hank writes in Coup, 'The coincidental timing of June Cobb spotting Davis at the Hotel Luma — managed by her good friend Warren Broglie — may be explained by Carolyn's simple comment that she recognized Lee Harvey Oswald as having been "at a hotel thing" with her husband.
 

Neither does Lafitte reveal whether Bowen [Albert Osborne] and Hudson [John Wilson] were already in Mexico or if they traveled together or separately by auto, plane, or bus. He doesn't mention Bowen/Osborne as having been on a bus with Oswald although many researchers accept the itinerant preacher was on that bus. It should be noted that on September 22, Lafitte makes a notation "Oswald - Mex city" and beneath he writes, "Gaudet."
 

***

Of interest to any who have studied Major Ganis's "The Skorzeny Papers" and the significance of Otto's business deals with Texas independent oilmen, especially Algur H. Meadows pivotal to the Madrid oil scheme, we conclude that Lafitte's September 27 entry "Algur" is reference to Algur H. of Dallas-based General American Oil. That entry includes "Ilya" who we conclude was Mamantov, the Russian speaking oil industry expert who translated on behalf of Marina the afternoon of 11.22.63 at the behest of Jack Crichton of Empire Trust. Crichton, vital to the success of the Skorzeny/Meadows operation in Spain with the blessing of Franco, also appears in the datebook on critical dates as does his good friend and fellow intel officer in the 488th, Col. Frank "Brandy" Brandstetter.

 

***

 

With respect to the oft-cited Hitler Diaries analogy, most will remember the battle you faced when you and your team first argued that a blurry photo of a man resembling Lee Oswald standing outside the book depository building represented concrete evidence Oswald could not have been positioned in the sniper's nest as Kennedy's limo made its way down Elm. I experienced first hand the initial attitudes of Prayer Man advocates — "take it or leave it" — toward any who questioned the "authenticity" or significance of the blurred photo. That attitude morphed into a more aggressive and dare I say rude "take no prisoners" approach by some in your camp. Somewhat ironic, Hank's attitude was similar — take the Lafitte datebook or leave it — until he was eventually persuaded by the Australian documentary producer that the actual authentication process would provide a persuasive backdrop to the six-part documentary of his breakthrough investigation which was under contract. In late 2018, Hank arranged to take possession of the physical instrument and initiated authentication in London where the production company began filming. That footage is in the can, somewhere.

***
 

Admittedly I've not kept up with advances in photo analysis but I assume by now you have a peer reviewed report produced by a qualified photo examiner or better, a team of experts — the equivalent of authentication of a document — to advance your hypothesis. If so, kudos for your perseverance. I trust you're keenly aware of the obstacles, including significant expense, of such endeavors so I hope you respect that we're also in this for the long haul.

And for the record, Hank anticipated as many slings and arrows as have been lobbed at you and others (some of whom appear in this email list) in similar situations over the years, so on his behalf, we take no offence personally.
 

I am, however, certain Hank wouldn't have anticipated the complete lack of curiosity we've encountered in certain seasoned researchers and authors. I think he would ask what happened to the objective approach — essential to any investigator worth their salt — to the possibility Lafitte left us with an incredibly accurate record of the plot as it unfolded? Skepticism is healthy and "wait and see" is understandable, but some in the community appear to have become utterly jaded and simply refuse out of hand to consider his last investigation, "Coup in Dallas." Perhaps there is an element of professional jealousy that he stumbled onto the Lafitte material, or perhaps some are (understandably) tired and simply haven't the energy to wrestle with the 180 degree turn in the investigation.

***

Now that we're certain Oswald's role in Otto Skorzeny's strategy to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas was that of the designated patsy just as he insisted, the question remains: could Oswald be spotted — not to mention photographed standing outside the depository building at the moment shots were fired — and still be effective?

 

 

"Now that we're certain Oswald's role in Otto Skorzeny's strategy to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas was that of the designated patsy just as he insisted..."

 

"I'M JUST A PATSY"

You have to look at the patsy statement in it's entirety.

"They have taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy." -- Lee Oswald

Oswald is clearly claiming that the Dallas Police Department is picking on him because he once tried to defect to Russia. He is not saying anything about mythical conspirators who are attempting to frame him for the assassination.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

22 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

"Now that we're certain" ? You're joking, right?

@Jonathan Cohen I'm not familiar with your stance on what happened in Dealey.  Do you argue that Oswald fired at Kennedy?

[Leslie Sharp]

40 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"Now that we're certain Oswald's role in Otto Skorzeny's strategy to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas was that of the designated patsy just as he insisted..."

 

"I'M JUST A PATSY"

You have to look at the patsy statement in it's entirety.

"They have taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy." -- Lee Oswald

Oswald is clearly claiming that the Dallas Police Department is picking on him because he once tried to defect to Russia. He is not saying anything about mythical conspirators who are attempting to frame him for the assassination.

 

@Bill Brown If we didn't have written references in advance of Oswald's role in Dealey, I might consider your subjective interpretation of what he meant.

I should add, we make no claim that Oswald was fully aware he was being set up. There are notations to suggest he's upset, and that he required a 'caretaker', but nothing to indicate he signed up for the gig.  So with that in mind, your interpretation is interesting as it could reflect his slow recognition of just how he ended up in handcuffs, and the Soviet Union was the most logical explanation until he had time to process the rest. Tragically time ran out.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Jonathan Cohen]

21 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Jonathan Cohen I'm not familiar with your stance on what happened in Dealey.  Do you argue that Oswald fired at Kennedy?

What I object to is your use of the word "certain" as it pertains to Oswald being involved in "Otto Skorzeny's strategy to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas." I am entirely unconvinced there is any legitimate evidence to support such a claim.

[Leslie Sharp]

2 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

What I object to is your use of the word "certain" as it pertains to Oswald being involved in "Otto Skorzeny's strategy to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas." I am entirely unconvinced there is any legitimate evidence to support such a claim.

@Jonathan Cohen I'm going to assume you've followed the controversy over Albarelli's last investigation which landed him access to a private collection including a 1963 datebook maintained by Pierre Lafitte, a known contract agent for FBN, FBI, occasionally, and CIA at the behest of his friend CI James Angleton. Lafitte makes clear that Oswald is being set up as the designated patsy.  He also maintains a record in real time of his communication with Otto Skorzeny who is instructing him on the details of the plan for Dealey.

It's your prerogative to reject Hank's research, but I would challenge you to prove Otto WASN'T the strategist, that Oswald WASN'T the patsy, by providing evidence to support your theory of what happened on November 22.  

[Allen Lowe]

5 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"Now that we're certain Oswald's role in Otto Skorzeny's strategy to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas was that of the designated patsy just as he insisted..."

 

"I'M JUST A PATSY"

You have to look at the patsy statement in it's entirety.

"They have taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy." -- Lee Oswald

Oswald is clearly claiming that the Dallas Police Department is picking on him because he once tried to defect to Russia. He is not saying anything about mythical conspirators who are attempting to frame him for the assassination.

 

there is nothing clear about whom Oswald is claiming set him up - if anything it makes no sense for a guy, who was an intelligence operative caught up in the middle of an assassination, to blame the local cops, who were clearly responding to the immediate post-assassination dissemination of disinformation. LHO had been with Naval Intelligence since the 1950s (on the testimony of a gentleman I know to whom LHO admitted this), and the whole use of the term "patsy" is much different than what which he would have used if he was just a fall guy or had simply been set up by the locals to solve a murder they could not otherwise solve. "Patsy" is fraught with much deeper implications - show me a previous situation where a prisoner used that terminology - a simple local scheme would be referred to as a frame or a set up. "Patsy" is much deeper and broader, implying a scapegoat role which the arresting cops would not have come up with so quickly. Historically the burden of proof is on you to show that this was a common term used by arrestees to claim innocence. I have never heard it used this way otherwise. It shows a clear state of mind on LHO's part that he was being manipulated in a complex way. Otherwise he would have simply said "I am innocent."

Edited July 1, 2023 by Allen Lowe

[Bill Brown]

10 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

there is nothing clear about whom Oswald is claiming set him up - if anything it makes no sense for a guy, who was an intelligence operative caught up in the middle of an assassination, to blame the local cops, who were clearly responding to the immediate post-assassination dissemination of disinformation. LHO had been with Naval Intelligence since the 1950s (on the testimony of a gentleman I know to whom LHO admitted this), and the whole use of the term "patsy" is much different than what which he would have used if he was just a fall guy or had simply been set up by the locals to solve a murder they could not otherwise solve. "Patsy" is fraught with much deeper implications - show me a previous situation where a prisoner used that terminology - a simple local scheme would be referred to as a frame or a set up. "Patsy" is much deeper and broader, implying a scapegoat role which the arresting cops would not have come up with so quickly. Historically the burden of proof is on you to show that this was a common term used by arrestees to claim innocence. I have never heard it used this way otherwise. It shows a clear state of mind on LHO's part that he was being manipulated in a complex way. Otherwise he would have simply said "I am innocent."

 

"there is nothing clear about whom Oswald is claiming set him up..."

 

Again, Oswald isn't claiming that anyone is setting him up.  He's simply  saying that the Dallas Police Department likes him for the assassination for no other reason than he once lived in the Soviet Union.

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"there is nothing clear about whom Oswald is claiming set him up..."

 

Again, Oswald isn't claiming that anyone is setting him up.  He's simply  saying that the Dallas Police Department likes him for the assassination for no other reason than he once lived in the Soviet Union.

 

But that's not what he said, Bill. He said he was a "patsy". A patsy is not someone wrongly dragged into a police station to be interviewed. A patsy is someone played for a fool, someone set up to take the blame for someone else's crime. Here is the definition: 

noun,plural pat·sies. Slang. a person who is easily swindled, deceived, coerced, persuaded, etc.; sucker. a person upon whom the blame for something falls; scapegoat; fall guy.

While one may choose to believe he was lying, there is no doubt Oswald claimed he was a fall-guy, i.e someone set up to take the blame for someone else's crime. Essentially, then, he was admitting there was evidence against him, but was claiming this evidence was manufactured as part of a plot. This is in keeping moreover with what he told his wife and brother--that they could disregard the "so-called" evidence. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Leslie Sharp writes:

Quote

A response to Greg Parker's recent remarks regarding Albarelli's last investigation, "Coup in Dallas."

I'm not sure what Greg Parker's recent remarks are, and I'd be surprised if he made them here, what with not having been a member for years.

More importantly, I'm not sure what the "Problem with 'Prayer Man'" is. The Prayer Man question isn't just about "a blurry photo". The argument is that:

• certain frames of the Darnell and Wiegman films show someone standing on the TSBD steps immediately after the shots were fired;
• although there is not enough detail in the publicly available copies to allow the person on the steps to be identified with certainty, the person's physical appearance and clothing are consistent with those of Oswald;
• all the other people standing on or very near the steps can be identified in these films, to varying degrees of certainty, as TSBD employees;
• all the TSBD employees who claimed to have been standing on the steps can be identified, to varying degrees of certainty, and none of them is the Prayer Man figure;
• none of the TSBD employees on the steps mentioned that any outsiders were present there;
• it is unlikely that a random member of the public would have decided to push past a group of TSBD employees when better viewpoints would have been available along the side of the road;
• there is no strong evidence placing Oswald anywhere else at the time of the shooting;
• Oswald was on the first floor of the building, in the domino room, around five minutes earlier, when he saw Harold Norman and James Jarman enter the rear of the building;
• Oswald claimed in an interview that he had eaten his lunch on the first floor and then "went outside to watch the p. parade", in the words of James Hosty in a note that only came to light in 2019 (see http://www.prayer-man.com/the-james-hosty-notes/);
• Oswald's alibi was misrepresented in the official accounts of his interviews, and in the Warren Report.

Against this, there is the fact that none of the other TSBD employees on the steps mentioned seeing Oswald there, and that some of them denied having seen him at all that day.

Overall, there is good reason to suspect that the unidentified person on the steps is Oswald, although the current state of the evidence doesn't allow the question to be resolved with certainty.

It's important to note that the potential consequences of Oswald's confirmed presence on the steps are so great that the question really needs to be resolved, if possible.

Quote

I assume by now you [Greg] have a peer reviewed report produced by a qualified photo examiner or better, a team of experts — the equivalent of authentication of a document — to advance your hypothesis.

The problem is that a "peer reviewed report" cannot be made because the copies of the Darnell and Wiegman films that are in public circulation are insufficiently clear, being several generations removed from the originals.

Apparently the originals, or at least early copies, do exist. See Bart Kamp's account: http://www.prayer-man.com/the-search-for-the-wiegman-darnell-films/. It's possible that they may allow us to confirm or deny Oswald's presence on the steps at the time of the shooting. These films really ought to be treated as official JFK assassination records.

[Leslie Sharp]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Leslie Sharp writes:

I'm not sure what Greg Parker's recent remarks are, and I'd be surprised if he made them here, what with not having been a member for years.

More importantly, I'm not sure what the "Problem with 'Prayer Man'" is. The Prayer Man question isn't just about "a blurry photo". The argument is that:

• certain frames of the Darnell and Wiegman films show someone standing on the TSBD steps immediately after the shots were fired;
• although there is not enough detail in the publicly available copies to allow the person on the steps to be identified with certainty, the person's physical appearance and clothing are consistent with those of Oswald;
• all the other people standing on or very near the steps can be identified in these films, to varying degrees of certainty, as TSBD employees;
• all the TSBD employees who claimed to have been standing on the steps can be identified, to varying degrees of certainty, and none of them is the Prayer Man figure;
• none of the TSBD employees on the steps mentioned that any outsiders were present there;
• it is unlikely that a random member of the public would have decided to push past a group of TSBD employees when better viewpoints would have been available along the side of the road;
• there is no strong evidence placing Oswald anywhere else at the time of the shooting;
• Oswald was on the first floor of the building, in the domino room, around five minutes earlier, when he saw Harold Norman and James Jarman enter the rear of the building;
• Oswald claimed in an interview that he had eaten his lunch on the first floor and then "went outside to watch the p. parade", in the words of James Hosty in a note that only came to light in 2019 (see http://www.prayer-man.com/the-james-hosty-notes/);
• Oswald's alibi was misrepresented in the official accounts of his interviews, and in the Warren Report.

Against this, there is the fact that none of the other TSBD employees on the steps mentioned seeing Oswald there, and that some of them denied having seen him at all that day.

Overall, there is good reason to suspect that the unidentified person on the steps is Oswald, although the current state of the evidence doesn't allow the question to be resolved with certainty.

It's important to note that the potential consequences of Oswald's confirmed presence on the steps are so great that the question really needs to be resolved, if possible.

The problem is that a "peer reviewed report" cannot be made because the copies of the Darnell and Wiegman films that are in public circulation are insufficiently clear, being several generations removed from the originals.

Apparently the originals, or at least early copies, do exist. See Bart Kamp's account: http://www.prayer-man.com/the-search-for-the-wiegman-darnell-films/. It's possible that they may allow us to confirm or deny Oswald's presence on the steps at the time of the shooting. These films really ought to be treated as official JFK assassination records.

@Jeremy Bojczuk

Thanks for your concise (and respectful) response that argues Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest. Although I take issue with some of the bullet points you include,  I'm not here to debate the question of who didn't kill the president, a.k.a. Oswald other than his role as the perfect "patsy".

You explain, persuasively, The problem is that a "peer reviewed report" cannot be made because the copies of the Darnell and Wiegman films that are in public circulation are insufficiently clear, being several generations removed from the originals, which prompts the question: why, when I have repeatedly laid out the complications of securing a final report on authenticity of the Lafitte datebook, are we met with semi-derision from many Kennedy assassination researchers — most recently Greg Parker himself?

The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

[Leslie Sharp]

Sixty years —  hundreds of thousands of pages, thousands of feet of film footage,  tens of thousands of photos, and millions of hours of debate — all related to who didn't assassinate President Kennedy — is long enough.

I'm open to challenge, but I think most agree that by definition, the patsy was phenomenally effective.

The question: could he have been successful if filmed standing outside the building?

[Roger Odisio]

21 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

A response to Greg Parker's recent remarks regarding Albarelli's last investigation, "Coup in Dallas."


Greg,

You'll note from the relevant datebook entries that Lafitte doesn't reveal Oswald's mode of transportation from New Orleans to Mexico City, only that he meets Tom Davis at Hotel Luma.
 

I understood you to say that someone who knew MC well was a suspect in the machinations to implicate Oswald as having been there on the alleged dates, so I offered a prime candidate — Tom Davis.
 

We make no claim that Davis traveled on a bus with LHO, nor do we rely on "two girls" or other eyewitnesses who insisted later that they encountered or remembered seeing the Oswald who was arrested on November 22 for the shooting of Tippit.
 

Lafitte's MC entries also comport with information Hank gleaned during interviews with June Cobb and with Tom's wife Carolyn. Hank writes in Coup, 'The coincidental timing of June Cobb spotting Davis at the Hotel Luma — managed by her good friend Warren Broglie — may be explained by Carolyn's simple comment that she recognized Lee Harvey Oswald as having been "at a hotel thing" with her husband.
 

Neither does Lafitte reveal whether Bowen [Albert Osborne] and Hudson [John Wilson] were already in Mexico or if they traveled together or separately by auto, plane, or bus. He doesn't mention Bowen/Osborne as having been on a bus with Oswald although many researchers accept the itinerant preacher was on that bus. It should be noted that on September 22, Lafitte makes a notation "Oswald - Mex city" and beneath he writes, "Gaudet."
 

***

Of interest to any who have studied Major Ganis's "The Skorzeny Papers" and the significance of Otto's business deals with Texas independent oilmen, especially Algur H. Meadows pivotal to the Madrid oil scheme, we conclude that Lafitte's September 27 entry "Algur" is reference to Algur H. of Dallas-based General American Oil. That entry includes "Ilya" who we conclude was Mamantov, the Russian speaking oil industry expert who translated on behalf of Marina the afternoon of 11.22.63 at the behest of Jack Crichton of Empire Trust. Crichton, vital to the success of the Skorzeny/Meadows operation in Spain with the blessing of Franco, also appears in the datebook on critical dates as does his good friend and fellow intel officer in the 488th, Col. Frank "Brandy" Brandstetter.

 

***

 

With respect to the oft-cited Hitler Diaries analogy, most will remember the battle you faced when you and your team first argued that a blurry photo of a man resembling Lee Oswald standing outside the book depository building represented concrete evidence Oswald could not have been positioned in the sniper's nest as Kennedy's limo made its way down Elm. I experienced first hand the initial attitudes of Prayer Man advocates — "take it or leave it" — toward any who questioned the "authenticity" or significance of the blurred photo. That attitude morphed into a more aggressive and dare I say rude "take no prisoners" approach by some in your camp. Somewhat ironic, Hank's attitude was similar — take the Lafitte datebook or leave it — until he was eventually persuaded by the Australian documentary producer that the actual authentication process would provide a persuasive backdrop to the six-part documentary of his breakthrough investigation which was under contract. In late 2018, Hank arranged to take possession of the physical instrument and initiated authentication in London where the production company began filming. That footage is in the can, somewhere.

***
 

Admittedly I've not kept up with advances in photo analysis but I assume by now you have a peer reviewed report produced by a qualified photo examiner or better, a team of experts — the equivalent of authentication of a document — to advance your hypothesis. If so, kudos for your perseverance. I trust you're keenly aware of the obstacles, including significant expense, of such endeavors so I hope you respect that we're also in this for the long haul.

And for the record, Hank anticipated as many slings and arrows as have been lobbed at you and others (some of whom appear in this email list) in similar situations over the years, so on his behalf, we take no offence personally.
 

I am, however, certain Hank wouldn't have anticipated the complete lack of curiosity we've encountered in certain seasoned researchers and authors. I think he would ask what happened to the objective approach — essential to any investigator worth their salt — to the possibility Lafitte left us with an incredibly accurate record of the plot as it unfolded? Skepticism is healthy and "wait and see" is understandable, but some in the community appear to have become utterly jaded and simply refuse out of hand to consider his last investigation, "Coup in Dallas." Perhaps there is an element of professional jealousy that he stumbled onto the Lafitte material, or perhaps some are (understandably) tired and simply haven't the energy to wrestle with the 180 degree turn in the investigation.

***

Now that we're certain Oswald's role in Otto Skorzeny's strategy to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas was that of the designated patsy just as he insisted, the question remains: could Oswald be spotted — not to mention photographed standing outside the depository building at the moment shots were fired — and still be effective?

 

Leslie,

 

As you may know Greg Parker reads EF but is unable to respond here. I do not speak for him. But let me add a few things about Prayerman in case you may not know about some of them.

 

A few years ago (I think it was 2017), Greg contacted NBC Universal (now owned by Comcast).  He explained the importance of the Darnell and Wiegman films to the understanding of the JFKA. They apparently have the originals.  He asked for access to them.  They refused.

  

Since these films are clearly JFKA records, Greg asked NARA to add them to their JFKA Record Collection. They told him they didn't have the authority to do that.

 

Last September I emailed NARA and asked them if they took recommendations of records to add to their Collection, since imo, the JFK Act required the Collection be kept up to date.  I was told yes, they do accept recommendations (the other guy lied) and I should email NARA's general counsel with my recommendations.  I did and asked that the two films be added, explaining why.  That was November 18.  I have gotten no response since.

 

In the meantime MFF filed their lawsuit against NARA and Biden asking that the JFK Act be fully implemented, including information that is clearly a JFK record but which NARA has ignored.  Bill and Larry used my emails to NARA as one example of NARA failing to act despite having the information "placed under their nose".

 

Much of the corroborating evidence establishing the Oswald was *not* on the 6th floor has been done, awaiting a definite claim as to where he *was* instead to finally destroy the WR fairytale. 

 

No, there is no peer reviewed report on the films by a qualified expert at the moment.  Nothing can done without the camera originals as I understand it. Bart Kamp at ROKC in particular has talked about the difficulty of the enhancement work even if the camera original is gotten.  No one is shrinking from that.  But the importance of trying to identify that figure on the steps is clear.

 

One reason strikes to the heart of your point about the importance off finding out who did it, rather than who didn't. Imo, if it can be established Oswald didn't do it, the public would be much more interested than they are now--maybe even eager to find out--who did murder JFK and why.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

22 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Leslie,

 

As you may know Greg Parker reads EF but is unable to respond here. I do not speak for him. But let me add a few things about Prayerman in case you may not know about some of them.

 

A few years ago (I think it was 2017), Greg contacted NBC Universal (now owned by Comcast).  He explained the importance of the Darnell and Wiegman films to the understanding of the JFKA. They apparently have the originals.  He asked for access to them.  They refused.

  

Since these films are clearly JFKA records, Greg asked NARA to add them to their JFKA Record Collection. They told him they didn't have the authority to do that.

 

Last September I emailed NARA and asked them if they took recommendations of records to add to their Collection, since imo, the JFK Act required the Collection be kept up to date.  I was told yes, they do accept recommendations (the other guy lied) and I should email NARA's general counsel with my recommendations.  I did and asked that the two films be added, explaining why.  That was November 18.  I have gotten no response since.

 

In the meantime MFF filed their lawsuit against NARA and Biden asking that the JFK Act be fully implemented, including information that is clearly a JFK record but which NARA has ignored.  Bill and Larry used my emails to NARA as one example of NARA failing to act despite having the information "placed under their nose".

 

Much of the corroborating evidence establishing the Oswald was *not* on the 6th floor has been done, awaiting a definite claim as to where he *was* instead to finally destroy the WR fairytale. 

 

No, there is no peer reviewed report on the films by a qualified expert at the moment.  Nothing can done without the camera originals as I understand it. Bart Kamp at ROKC in particular has talked about the difficulty of the enhancement work even if the camera original is gotten.  No one is shrinking from that.  But the importance of trying to identify that figure on the steps is clear.

 

One reason strikes to the heart of your point about the importance off finding out who did it, rather than who didn't. Imo, if it can be established Oswald didn't do it, the public would be much more interested than they are now--maybe even eager to find out--who did murder JFK and why.

 

@Roger Odisio thanks very much Roger.  And I'm familiar with some of this history, including your invaluable efforts to secure the film footage. I've recently engaged with Greg in a separate venue. Apparently he is unhappy with this thread on Ed Forum.

I still argue that 60 years is long enough to focus the battle on "Oswald" — that he DIDN'T do it. By definition, he remains the perfect patsy, taking our eye off the ball of who actually killed our president.

Oglesby and Brussell were on the path to uncovering who did - as we now know with the advantage of Lafitte's record which corroborates and advances their hypothesis. 

I would once again point out the parallels to impediments to authentication of the Lafitte datebook and ask why those impediments aren't equally respected by some in "the community" as is your frustration that you still don't have access to the Wiegman and Darnell films?

 

 if it can be established Oswald didn't do it, the public would be much more interested than they are now--maybe even eager to find out--who did murder JFK and why.

 

If the Prayer Man argument holds up, is there not a serendipitous opportunity to combine forces and resources to move things off dead center and focus on who DID kill JFK in Dallas?