Prayer Man More Than A Fuzzy Picture

[Greg Doudna]

47 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Look at the Altgens photo. Your large figure person is two people. Probably Shelley and Molina. 

I don’t think that’s right Pat. In Altgens6 those are two men, one of whom I agree is Shelley, in front of Frazier and Large-Framed Figure of Darnell. Neither Frazier nor Large-Framed Figure to his left at the top level in Darnell appear at all in Altgens6 (either because standing too far to the east to be in the photo or else hidden in the black).

Edited October 3, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

On 9/30/2023 at 12:07 AM, Karl Kinaski said:

  

Provide a better pic and I will stop this. Otherwise it is the same thing as meditating about a fuzzy picture of Yeti or Bigfoot ... and, sorry to be repetitive: A Rorschach test ... no discussion about testimony etc. will change the number of pixels in this "Mandala" of Bart Kamp and the Prayerman community.  

 I am reading that book right now ( kindle format) and I can say this: it  is not a book but a guide about internet-links to Amazon JFKA books , JFKA forums, the Mary Ferell foundation JFKA related fotos, films and newspapers etc etc.  

I clicked on half that links and I found nothing new ... 

I already discovered a number of broken or wrong named links in that book ( so I suppose in some sense  I already know more about PMMTAFP than you and Bart Kamp himself😉) -- a "book" wich does a very good job to add to the confusion and division  within the CTer community of which this thread is a very good example ... 

Anyway I will stop talking about the fuzzy picture and maybe provide a review here if I am not bored to dead by PMMTAFP. 

IMO the JFKA is a rich source of getting wise, and there is no need to become an admirer of a particular CTer theory: Badgeman, Prayerman, Harvey&Lee etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you out to lunch?

I saw a better picture which you did not see. 

Is that plain English?

 

[James DiEugenio]

Pat Speer:

2. The images were still quite blurry--nearly identical to what is in the public domain.

If one wants to get access to the original film, and have it studied, then fire away. Get on it. But I'm not aware of anyone who'd attended that screening believing further study will prove anything.

 

The above is not true.

 

[Pat Speer]

21 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat Speer:

2. The images were still quite blurry--nearly identical to what is in the public domain.

If one wants to get access to the original film, and have it studied, then fire away. Get on it. But I'm not aware of anyone who'd attended that screening believing further study will prove anything.

 

The above is not true.

 

 

 

Ok. So where is this snail-speed movement at in its efforts to get access to better images? (My understanding is that the images were purported to be conclusive and were widely considered suggestive but not conclusive, and that no one followed up in any way. And from this I've deduced those involved figured it could go no farther.)

Where am I wrong?

[Jean Ceulemans]

41 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

 

 

Ok. So where is this snail-speed movement at in its efforts to get access to better images? (My understanding is that the images were purported to be conclusive and were widely considered suggestive but not conclusive, and that no one followed up in any way. And from this I've deduced those involved figured it could go no farther.)

Where am I wrong?

If there was any chance of proving PM = LHO, I think they would have gone for it.

But perhaps it could go farther, but in a "non-wanted" direction ?

Edited October 3, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[James DiEugenio]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

 

Ok. So where is this snail-speed movement at in its efforts to get access to better images? (My understanding is that the images were purported to be conclusive and were widely considered suggestive but not conclusive, and that no one followed up in any way. And from this I've deduced those involved figured it could go no farther.)

Where am I wrong?

Just about everywhere.

[Jonathan Cohen]

13 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Just about everywhere.

Can you be more specific please?

[Chris Davidson]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Are you out to lunch?

I saw a better picture which you did not see. 

Is that plain English?

 

Perhaps the picture you saw included one of the two red clothed individuals we see here?

https://vimeo.com/870842433?share=copy

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

 

Ok. So where is this snail-speed movement at in its efforts to get access to better images? (My understanding is that the images were purported to be conclusive and were widely considered suggestive but not conclusive, and that no one followed up in any way. And from this I've deduced those involved figured it could go no farther.)

Where am I wrong?

The real pursuit of Darnell and Wiegman has nothing to do with your fanciful story, Pat. 

Have you really missed my voluminous messages on here about my contact with NARA, starting more than a year ago, and the subsequent MFF lawsuit?  I asked NARA if they were looking to add JFK records not currently in their Collection.  They said they were, and asked for recommendations

The very next day I recommended they add Darnell and Wiegman because they are obviously JFKA records and may contain important information about the murder, which I explained.

Soon after, the MFF lawsuit was filed with NARA as a defendant.

One of the suit's main charges was NARA's record for the last 25 years since the ARRB closed of failing to add information to the JFK Collection.

So far,  NARA has claimed that they are not the functional successor to the ARRB and have no such responsibility.

Despite what they told me (which Bill and Larry pointed to in several filings).  Despite what the JFK Act says about NARA's responsibility to certify to the president and Congress when all JFK records have been made public in accordance with the Act.

So far the judge has accepted NARA's claim, without explaining who does have that job, since the Act established another 19 years for finding and releasing records after the ARRB closed.  If not NARA, who?

The judge's initial decision is ludicrous and is being challenged.

If the suit reaches the point where MFF can suggest records to be included in the Collection, Darnell and Wiegman are on the list to ask for.

As I understand it, NBC grabbed the Darnell and Wiegman originals the weekend of the murder, and has been hiding them ever since. Over the years individuals have asked NBC for access to enhance them, but were always stonewalled.

Think about that. NBC knows why researchers want to see the films.  If they didn't, Greg Parker told them several years ago when asked to see them.  AT some point,  they must have looked at them to see what's on them.  If they could show that figure is not Oswald we would have known about it years ago.

In any case, at the moment a court order demanding the films is the most promising path to getting them so far.

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

The real pursuit of Darnell and Wiegman has nothing to do with your fanciful story, Pat. 

Have you really missed my voluminous messages on here about my contact with NARA, starting more than a year ago, and the subsequent MFF lawsuit?  I asked NARA if they were looking to add JFK records not currently in their Collection.  They said they were, and asked for recommendations

The very next day I recommended they add Darnell and Wiegman because they are obviously JFKA records and may contain important information about the murder, which I explained.

Soon after, the MFF lawsuit was filed with NARA as a defendant.

One of the suit's main charges was NARA's record for the last 25 years since the ARRB closed of failing to add information to the JFK Collection.

So far,  NARA has claimed that they are not the functional successor to the ARRB and have no such responsibility.

Despite what they told me (which Bill and Larry pointed to in several filings).  Despite what the JFK Act says about NARA's responsibility to certify to the president and Congress when all JFK records have been made public in accordance with the Act.

So far the judge has accepted NARA's claim, without explaining who does have that job, since the Act established another 19 years for finding and releasing records after the ARRB closed.  If not NARA, who?

The judge's initial decision is ludicrous and is being challenged.

If the suit reaches the point where MFF can suggest records to be included in the Collection, Darnell and Wiegman are on the list to ask for.

As I understand it, NBC grabbed the Darnell and Wiegman originals the weekend of the murder, and has been hiding them ever since. Over the years individuals have asked NBC for access to enhance them, but were always stonewalled.

Think about that. NBC knows why researchers want to see the films.  If they didn't, Greg Parker told them several years ago when asked to see them.  AT some point,  they must have looked at them to see what's on them.  If they could show that figure is not Oswald we would have known about it years ago.

In any case, at the moment a court order demanding the films is the most promising path to getting them so far.

 

 

 

Wait. No one grabbed anything. Darnell and Wiegman were not free-lancers. They worked for NBC and its affiliates, right? So the films are their possessions, and are work product, basically unpublished notes. As wrong-headed as it seems, the American press claims ownership of original films and unpublished notes. Far worse than NBC's refusal to provide access to their films, is CBS' refusal to make public dozens if not hundreds of witness interviews from 1964 through 1967. It is believed many of these witnesses told CBS things they didn't tell the Warren Commission. But we don't know because CBS refuses to make the interviews available.(I think they told the ARRB they could copy them for a price, and the ARRB declined.)

P.S. What do you mean by fanciful?

Edited October 3, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Karl Kinaski]

I said, quote:

Quote

Anyway I will stop talking about the fuzzy picture and maybe provide a review here if I am not bored to dead by PMMTAFP. 

 

@James DiEugenio said, quote:

 

Quote

Are you out to lunch?

 No. I did some Prayerman-critique over there at ROKC. You know that "no-traffic" creation of Greg Parker and his three buddies. 
The prayerman folks (Greg Parker and Band) over there (at ROCK) banned me after two days of a "sweet exchange" for a post they claimed I deleted because of a dumb sentence which I never wrote and which is not in that post ... which I never deleted. LOL.  Parker confused two threads. Then Parker deleted most of my posts anyway.  It was a very funny experience. 

@James DiEugenio said, quote:

Quote

I saw a better picture which you did not see. Is that plain English?

Slightly above Rorschach? But serious: If you saw a processed pic of the currently available pics of good ole Prayerman (known since 1968), it is of no forensic value. If you saw a high resolution frame or pic of some original footage, I am desperately awaiting the unveiling of this Rosetta Stone  of the JFKA. 60 years of darkness are about to disappear. Or do I miss something? 

 

PS I hope this "better pic" is no David Josephs creation. I am not so much an admirer of his art. 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[Roger Odisio]

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Wait. No one grabbed anything. Darnell and Wiegman were not free-lancers. They worked for NBC and its affiliates, right? So the films are their possessions, and are work product, basically unpublished notes

RO: You have this backwards, Pat.  If Darnell and Wiegman were freelancers they would own the films. But they were employees of NBC affiliates.  NBC owns the films.

It was NBC executives who sent the films to its New York offices.

Here is something to ponder.  NBC first combined with Universal Pictures in the 70s, to form an entertainment conglomerate, NBC Universal.  Which was then bought by GE.  That has been gobbled up by Comcast.

NBC has been a major villain in the coverup.  Is it possible their bosses now at Comcast might feel differently about the importance of the films?

P.S. What do you mean by fanciful?

RO:  Fanciful, as in wishful or unreal.  A collection of unknownl, dubious characters signifying nothing tangible or reliable.

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

Are you trying to say the mucky-muck screening that fell flat never happened? 

[David Von Pein]

On 9/30/2023 at 10:24 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Oswald's claim in interrogation that he was out front...

Greg,

You're severely overstating (i.e., misstating) Lee Harvey Oswald's alleged "alibi". Oswald never once said he was outside on the front steps of the Book Depository Building at the time when President Kennedy was being shot.

When Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", Oswald was clearly indicating to Fritz that he had only gone "out" of the building AFTER he had already had his encounter with Police Officer Marrion Baker in the second-floor lunchroom, which was an encounter that occurred, of course, after the assassination had already taken place.

(See James W. Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report—HERE—for verification of the chronology of Captain Fritz' sketchy "out with Bill Shelley in front" note.)

The key words in Bookhout's report, chronology-wise, are these words:

"He thereafter went outside..."

And the more-recent discovery of James Hosty's "went outside to watch P. Parade" notes—discussed in detail HERE—have also been mischaracterized by conspiracists (IMO), because the basic chronology of those Hosty notes is identical to Bookhout's report, with Oswald (per the Hosty notes) only going outside after he had gone to the second floor to get a Coke....and we know the "Coke" excursion coincided with Oswald's encounter with Marrion Baker, which was AFTER the assassination, not DURING the assassination.

FWIW....

With regard to the identity of "Prayer Man", I'll re-post the following comments made two years ago by someone whose presence on the Depository front steps on November 22nd is not disputed by even the most hardened of conspiracy theorists:

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

Also See:
http://DVP's JFK Archives/"Prayer Man" Discussion
 

[Karl Kinaski]

IMO "went outside to see the parade" means: It was Oswald's intention to see the parade ... he missed it ...  and when  inspector Thomas J. Kelley asked him: Have you seen the parade? Oswalds answer was ... no. 

 That is why he answered correctly: "Naturally, if I work in that building ..."when a reporter asked him: "Where you in the building at that time? (of the shooting.)

Oswald came out of the building a minute after Truly and Baker went in and was "out with Bill Shelley in front " till ... Roger Craig saw him entering a station wagon ... 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Karl Kinaski