A Problem with "Prayer Man"

[Leslie Sharp]

On 7/7/2023 at 2:29 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

Sandy and I are of one mind!

Many conspiracy theorists jump to the conclusion that everything that happened, both during and after the shooting, had been carefully planned in advance, and that those who instigated the assassination had the power to carry out those plans after the assassination.

But we know that the plotters, whoever they were, either didn't have the power to control the photographic record or simply were not concerned about what it might show (or both). If, as appears to be the case, more than one gunman was involved, there was always a chance that some bystander would capture images which demonstrated that more than one gunman was involved. The plotters, whoever they were, clearly were not bothered by the possibility that the shooting could be demonstrated to be a conspiracy. They may in fact have preferred the assassination to be seen as a conspiracy.

We also know that the lone-gunman explanation was put forward and promoted in the early stages by political apparatchiks for political reasons. That explanation was later promoted by the media for the same basic reason: to maintain public trust in established political institutions. There's no need to assume that insiders such as Nicholas Katzenbach or Earl Warren, or entities such as CBS or the New York Times which heavily promoted the Warren Report, had any connection at all to whoever instigated the assassination.

It really is time for people to look at the assassination story in a more nuanced way, by making a distinction between the plot and the cover-up. This may even help us to discover precisely who might have been behind the shooting.

@Sandy Larsen@Jeremy Bojczuk

EPILOGUE

Levine will deal w/ Marina e.t. 

[illegible writing] / ck

 JA

(coded crypt)

call Madrid

  —Lafitte datebook, November 28, 1963

 

Levine   A  z-4   z

  —Lafitte datebook, November 30, 1963

 

This fellow Levine is in contact with Marina to break the story up in a little more graphic manner and tie it into a Russian business, and it is with the thought and background of a Russian connection, conspiracy concept. 

—John J. McCloy, Warren Commission Jan 21, 1964 

 

After much deliberation over the significance of Isaac Don Levine having closed out the assassination project manager’s 1963 datebook, Albarelli determined that, logically, Levine would also close out the investigation. . . . 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

@Sandy Larsen @Jeremy Bojczuk
Fast Forward, “Levine will deal with Marina” — November 28, 1963

Sometime in March 1964, after Jim Flahaty, CIA Officer, Mexico replaced Dave Philips, the [Mexico Chief of Station] wrote: “Suggest sending. There have been stories around town about all this, and [Charles] Thomas is not the only person she has talked to. [This was suspected to be Elena Garo]. Wigdail [possibly an unknown cover name] has a little folder which he is putting all the little scraps he can find relating to Oswald to the Cubans; when he gets enough of them I suppose he will try to do a dope piece. If memory serves me, didn’t LICOOKIE [This was June Cobb] refer to Oswald and the local leftists & Cubans in one of her squibs?” The Chief of Station also wrote, “Isaac Don Levine is writing a book about the assassination; Wigdail says that the Cuban connection bothers him increasingly as he proceeds in his research. IDL [Isaac Don Levine] had long talk with Marina not long ago in Russian. IDL is Russian Jewish, and reputable scholar—and left convinced that she hiding information.” Purportedly, Levine found Mrs. Oswald was a “Soviet patriot” and had “not told” of any contact with the Soviets. 

Before advancing Levine's assessment of Marina, and relevant to the task he had been assigned, the reader is reminded of the role of H. Keith Thompson, avowed National Socialist sympathizer, who was tapped as representative of the interests of Lee Oswald’s mother, Marguerite Oswald. As presented in earlier chapters, Thompson was an acolyte of Francis Parker Yockey, author of Imperium that became the “bible” for the worldwide fascist movement. Why the mother of an alleged Marxist would feel that Thompson was a suitable agent has never been fully explained, nor has the reason for his scheduling her appearance with Hitler’s Banker, Ilse Skorzeny’s “Uncle” Hjalmar Schacht on a Chicago talk show in March 1964 been adequately explored.

Indeed, by early 1964, clearly under the direction of those identified in numerous Lafitte datebook entries, and with the endorsement of John McCloy and Allen Dulles, Isaac Levine was collecting material for a book that would concentrate the nation’s focus on the patsy, Lee, and his widow Marina Oswald. According to author Peter Dale Scott, who very early on identified the “arrangement” with Levine that is now confirmed in Lafitte's Nov. 28, 1963 datebook entry, it was Henry Luce’s publisher and right-hand man, the seasoned propagandist C. D. Jackson, who followed Allen Dulles’s recommendation that Levine could ghost-write Marina’s story for Life magazine. Most are familiar that Jackson was also instrumental in what was essentially the seizure of explosive evidence in the assassination investigation when he negotiated the private purchase of the Abraham Zapruder film. Scott also reminded us that years earlier, the Jackson-Dulles-Levine team had collaborated on the US-CIA psychological warfare response to the death of Joseph Stalin.

[Roger Odisio]

11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

JB:  To go back to the topic of this thread, the question that interests me is: if evidence turns up which undeniably places Oswald on the TSBD steps when he is claimed to have been on the sixth floor (i.e. the originals or early copies of the Darnell and Wiegman films), what conclusions should we draw about the conspiracy and the cover-up?

RO: That the Warren Report's claim that Oswald was the lone gunman must be discarded and evidence of a conspiracy pursued.  That's why the films are so important.

JB:  There's one obvious conclusion: it would confirm that, as Steve points out, "the people who planned JFK's assassination wanted there to be evidence of a conspiracy."

 

RO:  No, only some of the planners wanted that and they lost out.  See below.

 

JB:  We know that the lone-gunman explanation was imposed after the event by political insiders, who had obvious political reasons for doing so. I can't disprove Roger's claim that Johnson helped matters along because he was involved in the plot, but I think the simpler explanation is sufficient: political insiders did it for simple political reasons. I'm not sure why the conspirators would have wanted the event to be seen as a conspiracy if they also had the power and desire to impose the lone-gunman explanation on it.

 

RO: If we start with the idea that Oswald was the patsy, the question was what's the story to tell? Why did he do it?  And when did the planners decide on a story?

 

You say the LN story was imposed after the killing by political insiders.  But in planning the murder did the planners really leave undecided Oswald's story--whether he was a lone shooter or was part of a conspiracy--to be decided afterwards.  I don't think so. That's a too important a part of the plan tobe left unresolved.

 

One bit of evidence that they didn't decide later is what the White House situation room, run at the time by McGeorge (up to his ears in the plan), told those on the flight back to Washington that afternoon. We have caught the murderer, they said,  and he acted alone.  There was no conspiracy. No matter what you think you saw in Dallas. This was only a few hours after the murder when they could not have known the truth of what they were saying, unless they had set it up that way.

 

As the new president handling the aftermath of the murder, LBJ  wanted no war with the Soviet Union.  You can have your Vietnam war, but... He, not some political insider,  decided on the LN story and eliminated the idea to link Oswald to the Soviet Union and Cuba.

 

Putting those two points together--why the decision was made and when-- indicates that LBJ was one of the planners.  They needed his input for the plan to be complete.  He wanted to be president as much as they wanted JFK gone.

JB: The fact that there was no co-ordinated confiscation of films and photographs suggests that the treatment of the Zapruder, Nix, Darnell and Wiegman films was not the result of careful pre-assassination planning. I'm not sure that anyone in a position of influence at NBC was aware back in 1963 that a couple of their news films might contain a few frames of Oswald on the steps. The topic didn't even become prominent in assassination circles until about ten years ago. Bureaucratic inertia might be sufficient to explain NBC's actions, or lack of actions.

RO:  I think the plan was to take notice (whatever that involved) of films taken from important locations (all four of them were) but try to avoid obvious heavy handed, random confiscation.  Then follow up with a notice in the local paper for anyone with other pictures to appear to be really interested in finding out what happened.

 

Larry Schnapf can tell you more about NBC's perfidy in several aspects of the JFKA.  If they grabbed the films that weekend, as has been alleged, and refused anyone permission to see them since, as we know, it's evidence you're being too easy on them. Any of their lawyers would have advised them to see what was on the films before they make any decisions about what to do with them. It's a safe bet they know what the films show.  If it was clear the figure on the steps was *not* Oswald I think they would have told us, consistent with their policy of defending the Warren Report.  Hmm..

 

JB:  Incidentally, David Wrone's excellent book The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination (University Press of Kansas, 2003) points out that the suppression of the film was nowhere near as complete as is often assumed. Numerous bootleg copies were in circulation for years before the film was shown on TV. There were thousands of showings of these bootlegs, at some of which more bootlegs were distributed. As Wrone points out (on page 60):

 

  Quote

Although public showings of the bootleg Zapruder film could take place in such diverse places as the living rooms of the wealthy, the back rooms of taverns, or the meetings of small social clubs, the most typical one was in colleges across the nation. A typical showing of the film in a college lecture hall would occur before an audience of two or three hundred students, a scattering of local people (conservatives and liberals), and representatives of the press.

 

... The film would be the highlight of the evening, the central point in the speaker's argument, and at the end the audience would usually be silent, sensing the profound seriousness of the problem. The lights would go on, and questions would be taken, often for as long as the speaker's formal presentation. After the speech, various books on the subject of the assassination and copies of the film and slides were often sold.

 

RO:  My takeaway from this is none of it mattered.  The planners weren't worried and they had little reason to be.  "Including members of the press"? Clear evidence that little or nothing came of all of these episodes as we can see since.

 

On the preference for the simplest answer, I think the simplest answer to the murder is right under our nose. Kennedy was not only threatening the CIA/war machine's long term plans for the world, he was threatening their very existence. If he got a second term it's likely they were finished. JFK's plans for the CIA were probably similar to what Truman advocated in the Wash Post oped one month after the murder--back to being an intelligence gathering agency only, as originally intended. The CIA/warmachine had the means and the motive.

 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

@Roger Odisio @Jeremy Bojczuk

Oswald was in play by Sunday, April 7:

“Walker - Lee and pictures. Planned soon—can he do it? Won’t.” 

 

By August 16, George Joannides is in New Orleans on the heels of Oswald's leafletting drama:

"Antoines Room — Martello, E. Joann [Joannides] and Labadie. Quigly {sic} interview st. demonstration. Call Holdout"

 

On September 16, it is decided that L.O. will be used regardless:

"T. says L.O. is 'idiot' but w be used regardless. set-up complete. JW-H
 

October 25:

"Call JA Wash D.C. — O says done — Oswald set in place. — call Walker + others"
 

 

by November 9, it has been decided that Lee will not make it out of Dallas alive:

"On the wings of murder. the pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee. Clip Clip his wings" — a reference to a La Cagoule phrase that the patsy or pigeon  is slated for death as well.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

@Roger Odisio

 

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Roger Odisio]

9 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Roger Odisio I'm trying to understand why certain members of the Prayer Man movement seem threatened by any research that exposes the role Otto Skorzeny in particular played in the plan to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas.  Any insight would be appreciated.

Greg Parker himself invited me to share his vitriol, but first a word from Bart Kamp who apparently took umbrage during a discussion related to holes in various collections of records for the year 1963 when I remarked that Major Ganis noted that Otto and Ilse Skorzeny's papers for 1963 were uncharasterically scant compared with other years:

Bart bellowed:

 

xxxx OFF LESLIE SHARP!

 

You are part of this thread because you asked to be....I did not.

Hell of a difference.

 

Can't see me mentioning PM here for one iota of a second, and your spite completely misses the point. Just like that thread at EF.

One would think that after all the lecturing in that thread by others you would know tons on the matter by now.

Somehow that seems to be quite farfetched.

 

This email thread is not about you or your "the fat nazi did it" agenda.

 

Since the debacle in 2016/2017 at Morley's you have not changed one bit.

I caught you lying through your teeth then and knew there and then that you would do anything to be on the 'right side'.

 

You are part of the Conspiracy Theorists problem.

Your emails will be blocked from now on.

 

Enough with this stupid CTer dooky!
 

 

Greg Parker wrapped things up: 

When someone pushing a fat nazi agenda to sell books based on an obviously fraudulent datebook that the person has no desire to have scientifically investigated - and tries to insinuate or otherwise claim that said book on fat nazis being universally hailed, should be the "common goal", then yeah, Houston - we have a problem.

Ms. Sharp continually tries to deflect from the issues by bringing up "prayer man".  That is a sign that she knows she is peddling XXXXX. 

There is no "common goal".  CTs and LNs are two sides of the same coin and combined, are every bit as agenda driven as QANON, but only half as entertaining. The difference is, there are 1001 different agendas being pursued in this case, not just one. 

I do not exempt myself. I also have an agenda. But mine is pretty simple to understand. Get the case reopened. There is nothing underneath that - nothing hidden. What the xxxx you see is what the xxxx you get.  This year is my last hurrah. I am out once current projects are completed.  I have  no desire to be part of a three-ring circus spinning wheels till I drop. I have also just plain had enough of the egos and bulllshit.  

 

And apart from that, at some point, if you fall short of your goals,  you have to say "I gave it my best shot" and walk away.   I do not intend to fall short, but readily acknowledge that any other outcome is still a longshot. 

Now off you go Leslie and post THAT at the ed forum. 

 

 

Against my better judgement I'm going to offer a limited response, Leslie. Again I don't speak for Greg or Bart.  

 

As you have said, the question of who didn't do it  and who did are separate, if linked, issues.  I have argued that the logical sequence of inquiry, the one most likely to achieve results, is to first show Oswald didn't do it to build support for finding out who did.  I don't know if either Greg or Bart agrees with that.  

 

But most at ROKC are focused on the exoneration of Oswald, though of course not entirely, and see Prayerman as the key to that effort at the moment. There is plenty of evidence that Oswald didn't do it, was not even on the 6th floor, so even if the figure on the steps turns out to be someone else, the mission won't change.

 

It's not that they feel threatened by your research about what you see as Skorzeny's role in the murder.  It's a distraction, certainly irrelevant to the pursuit of Prayerman.

 

More than that, they recoil at your voluminous use of the datebook in your posts without first establishing its legitimacy.  IOW, it's not only a distraction but, worse, one without a legit basis for discussion in the first place.

 

Much of the vitriol, I think, comes from that. 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Against my better judgement I'm going to offer a limited response, Leslie. Again I don't speak for Greg or Bart.  

 

As you have said, the question of who didn't do it  and who did are separate, if linked, issues.  I have argued that the logical sequence of inquiry, the one most likely to achieve results, is to first show Oswald didn't do it to build support for finding out who did.  I don't know if either Greg or Bart agrees with that.  

 

But most at ROKC are focused on the exoneration of Oswald, though of course not entirely, and see Prayerman as the key to that effort at the moment. There is plenty of evidence that Oswald didn't do it, was not even on the 6th floor, so even if the figure on the steps turns out to be someone else, the mission won't change.

 

It's not that they feel threatened by your research about what you see as Skorzeny's role in the murder.  It's a distraction, certainly irrelevant to the pursuit of Prayerman.

 

More than that, they recoil at your voluminous use of the datebook in your posts without first establishing its legitimacy.  IOW, it's not only a distraction but, worse, one without a legit basis for discussion in the first place.

 

Much of the vitriol, I think, comes from that. 

Roger.  I've been compelled to delete the conversation with Kamp and Parker. I'll copy - paste your measured (and much appreciated) comment in a new comment.

[Leslie Sharp]

Against my better judgement I'm going to offer a limited response, Leslie. Again I don't speak for Greg or Bart.  

 

As you have said, the question of who didn't do it  and who did are separate, if linked, issues.  I have argued that the logical sequence of inquiry, the one most likely to achieve results, is to first show Oswald didn't do it to build support for finding out who did.  I don't know if either Greg or Bart agrees with that. 

LS I believe, after sixty years, there are millions of citizens who will never be convinced Oswald wasn't the lone shooter regardless of photo images to the contrary.  I appreciate that is not a popular stance among the Prayer Man movement, and I accept that similarly  and at this juncture, if we capture photos of Jean Souetre and the teams who did kill JFK, we will then be confronted with cries of PHOTOSHOP! (which no doubt you know will be hurled at improved images purportedly originating in the Wiegman and or Darnell films). 

 

But most at ROKC are focused on the exoneration of Oswald, though of course not entirely, and see Prayerman as the key to that effort at the moment. There is plenty of evidence that Oswald didn't do it, was not even on the 6th floor, so even if the figure on the steps turns out to be someone else, the mission won't change.

LS It's good to learn that some common sense may have permeated the thought process among some PM adherents.

 

It's not that they feel threatened by your research about what you see as Skorzeny's role in the murder.  It's a distraction, certainly irrelevant to the pursuit of Prayerman.

LS The suggestion that identifying who did kill JFK is a distraction is patently absurd, imo. It is possible that our pursuits might converge if only we were dealing with a collective of reasonable minds modeled on your own.  

 

More than that, they recoil at your voluminous use of the datebook in your posts without first establishing its legitimacy.  IOW, it's not only a distraction but, worse, one without a legit basis for discussion in the first place.

LS Voluminous, premature use (to the point of tragic comedy) of blurry images employed in defense of a sensational hypothesis served only to distract "the community" that already knew Oswald did not kill JFK.  I continue to argue it was irresponsible from the outset.

 

Much of the vitriol, I think, comes from that. 

LS The vitriol is a character trait of ruffian personalities  Constructive debate appears to be anathema for some.

[Roger Odisio]

12 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Against my better judgement I'm going to offer a limited response, Leslie. Again I don't speak for Greg or Bart.  

 

As you have said, the question of who didn't do it  and who did are separate, if linked, issues.  I have argued that the logical sequence of inquiry, the one most likely to achieve results, is to first show Oswald didn't do it to build support for finding out who did.  I don't know if either Greg or Bart agrees with that. 

LS I believe, after sixty years, there are millions of citizens who will never be convinced Oswald wasn't the lone shooter regardless of photo images to the contrary.  I appreciate that is not a popular stance among the Prayer Man movement, and I accept that similarly  and at this juncture, if we capture photos of Jean Souetre and the teams who did kill JFK, we will then be confronted with cries of PHOTOSHOP! (which no doubt you know will be hurled at improved images purportedly originating in the Wiegman and or Darnell films). 

 

As you have said, the question of who didn't do it  and who did are separate, if linked, issues.  I have argued that the logical sequence of inquiry, the one most likely to achieve results, is to first show Oswald didn't do it to build support for finding out who did.  I don't know if either Greg or Bart agrees with that. 

LS I believe, after sixty years, there are millions of citizens who will never be convinced Oswald wasn't the lone shooter regardless of photo images to the contrary.  I appreciate that is not a popular stance among the Prayer Man movement, and I accept that similarly  and at this juncture, if we capture photos of Jean Souetre and the teams who did kill JFK, we will then be confronted with cries of PHOTOSHOP! (which no doubt you know will be hurled at improved images purportedly originating in the Wiegman and or Darnell films). 

 

RO: Don't judge the film evidence in isolation. We can all see that *somebody* is standing in that spot on the steps. We now know that's where Oswald said he was during his first interrogation. We know, e.g., from Vicki Adams and particularly Dorothy Garner that Oswald did not come down the back steps after the murder. There are other witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the first floor shortly after the murder, verifying the WR story as fiction. Sean Murphy's meticulous work, set out in Stan Dane's book, asking the question who else could it be, has never been satisfactorily answered.  Still, all of this hasn't made much of a dent except to a small group who follows it. Identifying Oswald as Prayerman is the piece that definitively blows up the WR, and, as I said, paves the way for your work about who actually did it to get more traction.  Sure, some in desperation would cry photoshop, but an explanation of the enhancement done should take care of that, if the charge is even taken seriously.

 

It's not that they feel threatened by your research about what you see as Skorzeny's role in the murder.  It's a distraction, certainly irrelevant to the pursuit of Prayerman.

LS The suggestion that identifying who did kill JFK is a distraction is patently absurd, imo. It is possible that our pursuits might converge if only we were dealing with a collective of reasonable minds modeled on your own.

 

RO:  If each is successful, the two pursuits--Oswald didn't do it and who did--will converge into a complete story to replace the WR.

I didn't say IDing who killed JFK is a distraction, but something much more specific: the research in Coup isn't relevant to the Prayerman determination and is thought by some to be a distraction unless the legitimacy of the datebook can first be established 

 
More than that, they recoil at your voluminous use of the datebook in your posts without first establishing its legitimacy.  IOW, it's not only a distraction but, worse, one without a legit basis for discussion in the first place.

LS Voluminous, premature use (to the point of tragic comedy) of blurry images employed in defense of a sensational hypothesis served only to distract "the community" that already knew Oswald did not kill JFK.  I continue to argue it was irresponsible from the outset.

 

RO: You're going overboard by claiming it is the Prayerman folks who are the distraction.  How can establishing the importance of the unclear image by reference to other evidence, and wanting it clarified by irresponsible?

 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

As you have said, the question of who didn't do it  and who did are separate, if linked, issues.  I have argued that the logical sequence of inquiry, the one most likely to achieve results, is to first show Oswald didn't do it to build support for finding out who did.  I don't know if either Greg or Bart agrees with that. 

LS I believe, after sixty years, there are millions of citizens who will never be convinced Oswald wasn't the lone shooter regardless of photo images to the contrary.  I appreciate that is not a popular stance among the Prayer Man movement, and I accept that similarly  and at this juncture, if we capture photos of Jean Souetre and the teams who did kill JFK, we will then be confronted with cries of PHOTOSHOP! (which no doubt you know will be hurled at improved images purportedly originating in the Wiegman and or Darnell films). 

 

RO: Don't judge the film evidence in isolation. We can all see that *somebody* is standing in that spot on the steps. We now know that's where Oswald said he was during his first interrogation. We know, e.g., from Vicki Adams and particularly Dorothy Garner that Oswald did not come down the back steps after the murder. There are other witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the first floor shortly after the murder, verifying the WR story as fiction. Sean Murphy's meticulous work, set out in Stan Dane's book, asking the question who else could it be, has never been satisfactorily answered.  Still, all of this hasn't made much of a dent except to a small group who follows it. Identifying Oswald as Prayerman is the piece that definitively blows up the WR, and, as I said, paves the way for your work about who actually did it to get more traction.  Sure, some in desperation would cry photoshop, but an explanation of the enhancement done should take care of that, if the charge is even taken seriously.

 

It's not that they feel threatened by your research about what you see as Skorzeny's role in the murder.  It's a distraction, certainly irrelevant to the pursuit of Prayerman.

LS The suggestion that identifying who did kill JFK is a distraction is patently absurd, imo. It is possible that our pursuits might converge if only we were dealing with a collective of reasonable minds modeled on your own.

 

RO:  If each is successful, the two pursuits--Oswald didn't do it and who did--will converge into a complete story to replace the WR.

I didn't say IDing who killed JFK is a distraction, but something much more specific: the research in Coup isn't relevant to the Prayerman determination and is thought by some to be a distraction unless the legitimacy of the datebook can first be established 

 
More than that, they recoil at your voluminous use of the datebook in your posts without first establishing its legitimacy.  IOW, it's not only a distraction but, worse, one without a legit basis for discussion in the first place.

LS Voluminous, premature use (to the point of tragic comedy) of blurry images employed in defense of a sensational hypothesis served only to distract "the community" that already knew Oswald did not kill JFK.  I continue to argue it was irresponsible from the outset.

 

RO: You're going overboard by claiming it is the Prayerman folks who are the distraction.  How can establishing the importance of the unclear image by reference to other evidence, and wanting it clarified by irresponsible?

 

As you have said, the question of who didn't do it  and who did are separate, if linked, issues.  I have argued that the logical sequence of inquiry, the one most likely to achieve results, is to first show Oswald didn't do it to build support for finding out who did.  I don't know if either Greg or Bart agrees with that. 

LS I believe, after sixty years, there are millions of citizens who will never be convinced Oswald wasn't the lone shooter regardless of photo images to the contrary.  I appreciate that is not a popular stance among the Prayer Man movement, and I accept that similarly  and at this juncture, if we capture photos of Jean Souetre and the teams who did kill JFK, we will then be confronted with cries of PHOTOSHOP! (which no doubt you know will be hurled at improved images purportedly originating in the Wiegman and or Darnell films). 

 

RO: Don't judge the film evidence in isolation. We can all see that *somebody* is standing in that spot on the steps. We now know that's where Oswald said he was during his first interrogation. We know, e.g., from Vicki Adams and particularly Dorothy Garner that Oswald did not come down the back steps after the murder. There are other witnesses who said they saw Oswald on the first floor shortly after the murder, verifying the WR story as fiction. Sean Murphy's meticulous work, set out in Stan Dane's book, asking the question who else could it be, has never been satisfactorily answered.  Still, all of this hasn't made much of a dent except to a small group who follows it. Identifying Oswald as Prayerman is the piece that definitively blows up the WR, and, as I said, paves the way for your work about who actually did it to get more traction.  Sure, some in desperation would cry photoshop, but an explanation of the enhancement done should take care of that, if the charge is even taken seriously.

LS1 Are you asking to prove a negative? And surely you agree there were numerous, far less controversial pieces to blow up the Warren Report long before the Prayer Man theory surfaced. 

 

It's not that they feel threatened by your research about what you see as Skorzeny's role in the murder.  It's a distraction, certainly irrelevant to the pursuit of Prayerman.

LS The suggestion that identifying who did kill JFK is a distraction is patently absurd, imo. It is possible that our pursuits might converge if only we were dealing with a collective of reasonable minds modeled on your own. 

 

RO:  If each is successful, the two pursuits--Oswald didn't do it and who did--will converge into a complete story to replace the WR. 

I didn't say IDing who killed JFK is a distraction, but something much more specific: the research in Coup isn't relevant to the Prayerman determination and is thought by some to be a distraction unless the legitimacy of the datebook can first be established .

LS1 If you're suggesting that we should just move along and not question whether the designated patsy identified in the Lafitte datebook would be effective if caught on film outside the building at the time shots were fired, we're at an impasse. Questioning the legitimacy of the datebook might be construed as a self-preservation  tactic. 

 
More than that, they recoil at your voluminous use of the datebook in your posts without first establishing its legitimacy.  IOW, it's not only a distraction but, worse, one without a legit basis for discussion in the first place.

LS Voluminous, premature use (to the point of tragic comedy) of blurry images employed in defense of a sensational hypothesis served only to distract "the community" that already knew Oswald did not kill JFK.  I continue to argue it was irresponsible from the outset.

 

RO: You're going overboard by claiming it is the Prayerman folks who are the distraction.  How can establishing the importance of the unclear image by reference to other evidence, and wanting it clarified by irresponsible?

 

LS1 I'm not "overboard." I'm pointing out that Prayer Man — by sheer bullying in many instances — seized the attention of amateur researchers who might have contributed to tracking down the killers instead. I remember early on, one of the primary promoters of Shane's theory said that he didn't give a fxxk who killed Kennedy.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

On 7/10/2023 at 4:57 PM, Roger Odisio said:

 

On the preference for the simplest answer, I think the simplest answer to the murder is right under our nose. Kennedy was not only threatening the CIA/war machine's long term plans for the world, he was threatening their very existence. If he got a second term it's likely they were finished. JFK's plans for the CIA were probably similar to what Truman advocated in the Wash Post oped one month after the murder--back to being an intelligence gathering agency only, as originally intended. The CIA/warmachine had the means and the motive.

How does that explain Kennedy's shifting foreign intel from the agency to the military?

And, hadn't he proposed that his brother Robert F. Kennedy might have been a better DCI than AG, or did others make the observation years later?

Either way, it seems that JFK knew he needed some form of foreign intel for no other reason than to advance his initiatives, or do I have that history wrong? 

[Jonathan Cohen]

23 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

LS1 I'm not "overboard." I'm pointing out that Prayer Man — by sheer bullying in many instances — seized the attention of amateur researchers who might have contributed to tracking down the killers instead. I remember early on, one of the primary promoters of Shane's theory said that he didn't give a fxxk who killed Kennedy.

Leslie, do you honestly believe that these so-called "amateur researchers" who had their "attention seized" are now incapable of studying any other aspect of the Kennedy assassination besides the identity of Prayer Man? I also find it a bit odd that you are passing judgment on what topics people "should" be studying. For instance, should Jefferson Morley stop suing the government so he can instead devote his full time and attention to a datebook of unknown authenticity?

[Leslie Sharp]

4 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Leslie, do you honestly believe that these so-called "amateur researchers" who had their "attention seized" are now incapable of studying any other aspect of the Kennedy assassination besides the identity of Prayer Man? I also find it a bit odd that you are passing judgment on what topics people "should" be studying. For instance, should Jefferson Morley stop suing the government so he can instead devote his full time and attention to a datebook of unknown authenticity?

You've provided an opening for me to shared the history of Albarelli's communication with Morley related to the datebook; and Morley's subsequent 'viewing' of the physical instrument at my invitation.

But I think you're driving at something else entirely?

 

I stand by my argument that Prayer Man captured the imagination of many who might have been inclined to determine who, precisely, killed JFK, but any shiny object . . .

Don't you agree there was sufficient evidence Oswald was NOT the killer of the president WITHOUT evidence he was standing outside?  

Edited July 21, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I stand by my argument that Prayer Man captured the imagination of many who might have been inclined to determine who, precisely, killed JFK, but any shiny object . . .

Don't you agree there was sufficient evidence Oswald was NOT the killer of the president WITHOUT evidence he was standing outside?  

Whether there is or isn't is, to me, irrelevant at this late date. Researchers, and the general public, rightly want DEFINITIVE proof ... not datebooks of unknown authenticity, not absurd theories about Lee Harvey Oswald doppelgangers, not a default position that all of the film and photo evidence from Dealey Plaza has been faked or altered. A definitive determination that Oswald was indeed standing in front of the TSBD during the assassination would end 60 years of debate in one fell swoop.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Jonathan Cohen

[Paul Rigby]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

 A definitive determination that Oswald was indeed standing in front of the TSBD during the assassination would end 60 years of debate in one fail swoop.

In one fell swoop, a sentence ruined and a sound proposition rendered unintentionally hilarious. Tremendous.