Prayer Man More Than A Fuzzy Picture

[Paul Jolliffe]

10 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Good point.

This detailed discussion between Pat and I should go on another thread.

[Paul Jolliffe]

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I believe you are correct, David.  

From Chapter 1b on my website:

on 12-18, the FBI's Alex Rosen, who was charged with investigating the physical facts of the assassination, wrote a memo in which he insisted the FBI's delay in seeking the autopsy report was because "the family of the President had requested the report from the U.S. Naval Hospital at Bethesda be kept as confidential as possible." This assertion is suspicious at best, as FBI Director Hoover was such a sensitive guy that when he called Robert Kennedy to tell him of his brother's death, he is reported to have blurted "the President's dead" and hung up. Hoover's hatred for Robert Kennedy was so great, in fact, that when Robert Kennedy was himself assassinated the FBI deliberately minimized the news coverage of his funeral by delaying the announcement of the arrest of Martin Luther King assassination suspect James Earl Ray for two whole days, and then announcing it during Kennedy's funeral. This assertion, by the way, comes courtesy Hoover's boss at the time, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark.

More to the point, this "oh, the Kennedys wouldn't let us" excuse presented by Rosen, which would be repeated by Warren Commissioner John McCloy and Junior Counsel Arlen Specter in the months and years to come, was ultimately rejected by Hoover himself. In June 1966, when Edward Epstein's book Inquest brought considerable attention to the FBI's failure to read the autopsy report, and embrace its findings, Rosen at first responded by denying there was a problem. He insisted that the FBI's initial reports were based upon the statements of the doctors during the autopsy, and that the 1-13-64 Supplemental report in which these early statements were repeated, weeks after the FBI had been supplied the autopsy report, was also not in error. Yes, incredibly, although the FBI had ignored in its Supplemental Report the official autopsy report then in its possession, and had offered up its own explanation for the throat wound (that it represented the exit of a fragment from the head shot), Rosen claimed, in a June 2, 1966 memo to Hoover's leaker-in-chief Cartha DeLoach, that the inaccurate statements in the Supplemental Report had been included to "point out the apparent conflict between the information originally furnished by medical authorities on 11/22/63 and the results of our Laboratory's examination of the President's clothing, which indicated a bullet had exited his body."

Well, of course. One always points out inconsistent information by leading the reader to an inaccurate conclusion, and then failing to quote from additional reports in which this inconsistent information has been clarified...

In any event, an October 7, 1966 memo from Rosen to DeLoach in which the increasingly desperate Rosen now acknowledged there had been some confusion about the president's wounds, but blamed this on the Kennedy family, received a terse response from Hoover, who obviously knew better. On the last page of the memo, Hoover scribbled: "The confusion... would never have occurred if we had obtained the autopsy report originally. The Kennedys never asked us to withhold it and if they had we should have disregarded it." (Hoover is absolutely right on this point. Many of the conspiracy theories he so despised would not have reared up if the government as a whole had not been so strangely secretive about the autopsy in the first place.)

Pat,

We should continue this (fascinating) topic on a separate post, and not on one dedicated to the "Prayer Man" book.

[Greg Doudna]

On 10/11/2023 at 11:06 AM, Micah Mileto said:

I don't know if this means Buell Frazier, but on the subject of Buell, hasn't he already pretty much outed himself as a clown? I mean, claiming to have seen a guy behind the Depository running off with a rifle?

Micah—Frazier says in his book he saw Oswald leaving from the rear by walking, crossing Houston to walk in the direction of where he then caught the bus. But Frazier said nothing about Oswald running or carrying any gun.

I don’t know how you think Oswald left the building, but it had to have been either from the front or the rear, since those are the only two exits, and no witness or photograph has Oswald leaving by the front. 

Therefore it hardly seems justified to call Frazier “a clown” for testimony that has not been shown obviously unreasonable on that point. 

On the man with the rifle in the car trunk Frazier saw in front of the TSBD that Frazier tells of, Jean Paul Ceulemans is probably right, plain-clothed law enforcement.

Another item told by Frazier in the book which he says frightened him, a man in a car near his house one evening after the assassination with a gun, that Frazier interpreted as meaning to harm him or his family, and then Frazier witnessed talking to a patrol car casually, sounds to me like Frazier misunderstanding Irving Police security outside Ruth Paine’s house that Michael Paine hadrequested of the Irving Police for his wife, which request was accommodated.

[Bill Brown]

On 10/11/2023 at 4:01 PM, Pat Speer said:

Elements of the report were shared with the Parkland doctors and leaked to the press within a few days of the shooting. So there's nothing to indicate it was changed afterwards. But we have every reason to suspect Humes' original draft was at odds with the single-assassin solution, and was tossed into the fire after Oswald's death. 

 

The only reason you know Humes burned his autopsy notes is because he told you so.  Kinda silly for him to disclose if there was anything nefarious going on.

 

[Paul Jolliffe]

55 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Micah—Frazier says in his book he saw Oswald leaving from the rear by walking, crossing Houston to walk in the direction of where he then caught the bus. But Frazier said nothing about Oswald running or carrying any gun.

I don’t know how you think Oswald left the building, but it had to have been either from the front or the rear, since those are the only two exits, and no witness or photograph has Oswald leaving by the front. 

Therefore it hardly seems justified to call Frazier “a clown” for testimony that has not been shown obviously unreasonable on that point. 

On the man with the rifle in the car trunk Frazier saw in front of the TSBD that Frazier tells of, Jean Paul Ceulemans is probably right, plain-clothed law enforcement.

Another item told by Frazier in the book which he says frightened him, a man in a car near his house one evening after the assassination with a gun, that Frazier interpreted as meaning to harm him or his family, and then Frazier witnessed talking to a patrol car casually, sounds to me like Frazier misunderstanding Irving Police security outside Ruth Paine’s house that Michael Paine hadrequested of the Irving Police for his wife, which request was accommodated.

Greg,

I haven't read Frazier's book, so can you help me out here?

Where (exactly) was Frazier standing when he saw "Oswald" leave the TSBD? We all know that Frazier was on the front steps during the assassination sequence. Did Frazier go around to the back of the building by walking up Houston, or did Frazier re-enter the TSBD and go to the back? 

Frazier's testimony to the Warren Commission does not mention seeing "Oswald" in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Yet it does leave the possibility that Frazier might have seen "Oswald" on the street because Frazier claimed he did not re-enter the TSBD for a few minutes. (He then went in, walked to the back, grabbed his lunch and took it downstairs to the basement. So he could have seen "Oswald" either in or out of the TSBD. Thus my question.)

How long after the assassination did Frazier see "Oswald"? Within seconds? If minutes, how many (approximately)?

Was "Oswald" close enough to Frazier that Frazier could have said something to him? Did Frazier speak with "Oswald"? After all, if Frazier saw "Oswald" crossing Houston and heading to Elm, then "Oswald" must have been walking in a southeast direction if he came from the back of the TSBD. And Frazier had been standing very near the SE corner of the TSBD during the assassination. 

Did Frazier ever try to tell any authorities what he saw of "Oswald" after the assassination? If so, who and when? What was their reaction?

Thanks Greg.

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

It's a never ending story. In Sneed's No More Silence, one (not Frazier) even said that Frazier allegedly offered to Oswald to put the package in the trunk of the car (to pick up when they were done working), so he needn't take it with him in the TSBD. Oswald allegedly refused and allegedly said he needed in there....  Pfffffffft.  A lot of people saying a lot of things, but rarely those things are confirmed by the ones involved.

I do understand Frazier being under a lot of stress at such a young age, being picked up, being "close" to the alleged killer of the President...., interrogations, the real deal !  Yes he probably kept some things to himself, not really knowing what was the best thing to do at that time... not easy to later admit it wasn't really true o that it was a little different. 

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Greg,

I haven't read Frazier's book, so can you help me out here?

Where (exactly) was Frazier standing when he saw "Oswald" leave the TSBD? We all know that Frazier was on the front steps during the assassination sequence. Did Frazier go around to the back of the building by walking up Houston, or did Frazier re-enter the TSBD and go to the back? 

Frazier's testimony to the Warren Commission does not mention seeing "Oswald" in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Yet it does leave the possibility that Frazier might have seen "Oswald" on the street because Frazier claimed he did not re-enter the TSBD for a few minutes. (He then went in, walked to the back, grabbed his lunch and took it downstairs to the basement. So he could have seen "Oswald" either in or out of the TSBD. Thus my question.)

How long after the assassination did Frazier see "Oswald"? Within seconds? If minutes, how many (approximately)?

Was "Oswald" close enough to Frazier that Frazier could have said something to him? Did Frazier speak with "Oswald"? After all, if Frazier saw "Oswald" crossing Houston and heading to Elm, then "Oswald" must have been walking in a southeast direction if he came from the back of the TSBD. And Frazier had been standing very near the SE corner of the TSBD during the assassination. 

Did Frazier ever try to tell any authorities what he saw of "Oswald" after the assassination? If so, who and when? What was their reaction?

Thanks Greg.

I’m away from the book so speaking from memory, but he says he was outside the TSBD, he had moved from the steps to the sidewalk and was in the vicinity of the SW outside corner of the TSBD building. This was a small number of minutes after the assassination. From his position near the corner he says he saw Oswald walking south on the west side of Houston, then cross Houston and south on Elm. He did not see Oswald leave the rear entrance because that was not in his view. He was not close enough to speak to him. He says his attention was distracted from someone speaking to him I think, then when he looked back Oswald was gone from his sight in the mass of people. He did not tell of this until years later. To the Warren Commission he testified he had not seen Oswald further that day after late in the morning while working. I recall nothing said about trying to tell authorities earlier of his seeing Oswald walking away from the TSBD. I recall nothing said in his book about why he delayed in speaking of it. 

Although he seemed to preserve a lifelong distaste for Fritz from his experience from him, he speaks favorably of the DPD officers who arrested him and I think in one or two cases became friends with them over the years. His main complaint about the Warren Commission was the Commissioners seemed to be sleeping during his testimony as if uninterested. But he doesn’t speak really ill of people other than Fritz much in his book.

[Chris Davidson]

On 10/8/2023 at 9:11 AM, Chris Davidson said:

The same as we see in Hughes:

Universally Lightened:

https://vimeo.com/874304340?share=copy

[Pete Mellor]

Jim's excellent review of 'Prayer Man: More Than A Fuzzy Picture' on Kennedys and King here:-

Prayer Man: More Than A Fuzzy Picture by Bart Kamp (kennedysandking.com)

 

[Marcus Fuller]

On 10/13/2023 at 3:30 PM, Bill Brown said:

 

The only reason you know Humes burned his autopsy notes is because he told you so.  Kinda silly for him to disclose if there was anything nefarious going on.

 

It sounds sillier to me that he burned them in the first place. I would say that being accused of doing something stupid like that was the lesser of two evils. The alternative for him being far worse.

[Micah Mileto]

On 10/8/2023 at 5:16 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

 

A microscope would be necessary.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

I am in touch with a leading first amendment lawyer to see what our options are for trying to force NBC to release the Darnal footage. 

[Sandy Larsen]

46 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

I am in touch with a leading first amendment lawyer to see what our options are for trying to force NBC to release the Darnal footage. 

 

Alright Lawrence.... you da man! Good luck!

Though, as a layman, I don't understand how first amendment rights relate to getting private property from some person or organization.

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

there is an intersection of copyright law and first amendment protections. 

[Roger Odisio]

22 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

there is an intersection of copyright law and first amendment protections. 

The original Darnell and Wiegman films are JFK records under the JFK Records Act, and belong at NARA for public access, as you're arguing in the MFF lawsuit, Larry.

 

I think there is still another avenue to access. Darnell was working for WBAP-TV, now called KXAS-TV, a Dallas affiliate of NBC when he shot the film.  NBC later merged with Universal Pictures to become an entertainment conglomerate, which is now owned by Comcast.

Both films were transferred from Dallas to the corporate headquarters in New York, probably that same weekend, and NBC has refused all access requests as you know.

 

The local TV station has an FCC license that must be renewed every 8 years, and requires it to serve the public interest:   

 

"In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the 'public interest, convenience and necessity.' Generally, this means it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license." FCC manual revised 2021.

 

Its coverage of the JFKA earned WBAP-TV a national Delta Sigma Chi news award and bronze medallion. It was honored by the Dallas Press Club Radio and TV News Directors Association.

 

What a travesty. Their actions have made a mockery of the awards they gobbled up back then.  What could be a more important story, what could serve the public's right to know better, than seeing the original enhanced versions of the films that could answer the question of whether Oswald was on the steps when he claimed he was?

 

Regardless of which part of the Comcast corporation claims ownership of the copyright to the films, that argument did not prevent the ARRB from taking the Zapruder film so the public could see it (tho the family was handsomely compensated). And this was a private family, not a news organization with a public interest responsibility to bring the news to the public. The Archives has possession of other films relevant to the JFKA.

 

What argument could NBC/Comcast possibly make to the FCC as to why the films must remain hidden?  We should find out.

 

Do you know any lawyers who specialize in the FCC's public interest standards?

 

Here is the FCC talking about complaints. Several individuals have requested access to the films and NBC has flatly refused, so the first part has been done:

 

We give full consideration to the broadcast complaints, comments, and other inquiries that the Commission receives.  As stated above, we encourage you to first contact the station or network directly about programming and operating issues.  If your concerns are not resolved, with the exception of complaints about obscene, indecent, or profane programming, which should be submitted in the manner described previously -- and complaints about blanketing interference discussed earlier -- the best way to provide all the information the FCC needs to process your complaint about other broadcast matters is to fully complete an on-line complaint at https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us.  You can also call in, e-mail or file your complaint in hard copy with the FCC’s Consumer Center in the following manner:

 

Federal Communications Commission
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
45 L Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20554

Fax: (202) 418-0232
Telephone: (888) 225-5322 (voice); (888)835-5322 (TTY)
Email address: fccinfo@fcc.gov