Prayer Man More Than A Fuzzy Picture

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And when did that second-floor encounter occur? It occurred, of course, AFTER the shooting had taken place. Therefore, Bookhout's report most certainly does not give Oswald an "alibi" for the exact time of the shooting itself.

 

Oh, so you believe that Oswald went down and had his lunch AFTER the second-floor encounter. Good luck with that!

I didn't misrepresent anything. I split my post into two parts (two posts) so as to avoid confusion.

 

[David Von Pein]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh, so you believe that Oswald went down and had his lunch AFTER the second-floor encounter.

No, of course he didn't. That was just another one of the dozens of LIES that escaped the mouth of Lee Oswald after he was arrested. Similar to the lie that Oswald told to Fritz about how he (LHO) was on the FIRST FLOOR at the time of the assassination itself. Which is a lie that even many (most) CTers don't believe, because the "Prayer Man" CTers think Lee was OUTSIDE the building at 12:30, and hence he wasn't anywhere IN the building on the "first floor".

But if you're a CTer who believes in the "Prayer Man" nonsense, it means that it was really Captain Fritz who lied, instead of Oswald telling his "first floor" falsehood.

CTers, however, also have to paint FBI Agents Bookhout and Hosty as falsehood tellers as well, because they said this in their joint report on Page 613 of the Warren Report:

"Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building."

Edited September 21, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh, so you believe that Oswald went down and had his lunch AFTER the second-floor encounter.

No, of course he didn't. That was just another one of the dozens of LIES that escaped the mouth of Lee Oswald after he was arrested.

 

LOL, oh right David. Oswald couldn't let anybody know that he ate lunch before he had his encounter with Baker! Too.... uh.... incriminating?

Get real, man.

 

7 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Similar to the lie that Oswald told to Fritz about how he (LHO) was on the FIRST FLOOR at the time of the assassination itself.

 

That is the government's lie.

In his interrogation, Oswald said he was outside watching the Presidential Parade for 5 or 10 minutes with Bill Shelley. The coverup artists couldn't let word of that alibi get out for fear of everybody looking through their photos and films for Oswald standing there. So they changed Oswald's alibi from being just outside the doors to being just inside the doors. Neat trick.

 

 

[David Von Pein]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

LOL, oh right David. Oswald couldn't let anybody know that he ate lunch before he had his encounter with Baker! Too.... uh.... incriminating?

Get real, man.

It's very likely merely an indication of the President's assassin not being able to come up with a very believable alibi for himself and he botched it when he had to tell it to Captain Fritz.

-----------------------------------

Also.......

• "There is yet another reason why Oswald's statement that he was on the first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no sense at all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the screaming and all the commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is the likelihood that he would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to the second floor to get himself a Coke? How could any sensible person believe a story like that?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 958 of "Reclaiming History"

 

[Sandy Larsen]

57 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

It's very likely merely an indication of the President's assassin not being able to come up with a very believable alibi for himself and he botched it when he had to tell it to Captain Fritz.

 

Okay, let me get this straight. According to you....

When Oswald was asked where he was as the motorcade went by, he lied and said he was on the first floor eating lunch. Then he said that he went to the second floor to get a coke, where he encountered Officer Baker. After that, he botched it and said he went back to the first floor and ate lunch (again).

Then, when James Hosty went to write this down, he wrote that Oswald said that he went outside to watch the P. Parade.

Geez Dave, how on earth did Hosty HEAR that?? When Oswald SAID he ate lunch twice, and met up with Baker on the second floor?

It's funny how lies eventually bite you in the butt, isn't it?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

"There is yet another reason why Oswald's statement that he was on the first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no sense at all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the screaming and all the commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is the likelihood that he would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to the second floor to get himself a Coke? How could any sensible person believe a story like that?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 958 of "Reclaiming History"

 

Well Vincent is right, it does make no sense that Oswald was on the first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting. That's one of the slip-ups in the coverup narrative that gives it away.

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I need to point out that this wasn't always clearly understood. The reason being that the FBI inserted the story of the Baker/Oswald second-floor encounter in the wrong place. I am including it here, in red.

Oswald stated that .... he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. .... Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly....

We know it's inserted in the wrong place because, according to this narrative, Baker came in and had his second-floor encounter with Oswald first, and then Oswald went down and had his lunch. Which is nonsense. The red text should have been inserted after the black text.

Not that it matters. Bart and others (including myself) have shown that the second-floor encounter is a story fabricated for the coverup.

 

While I too think the Bookhout report is in error about what Oswald said, Sandy's solution to this makes little sense. By re-arranging the passages he has Oswald take THIS Coke--the one he was buying when approached by Baker--down to the first floor and go outside...BEFORE Baker ever entered the building. 

Is this correct? If not, what am I missing? 

[François Carlier]

The folkloric world of the Kennedy assassination is rife with picturesque names. After "Badgeman" and "Black-dog man", we now have "Prayer man".

The first two were imaginary shadowy men, illusory assassins who did not exist. On the contrary, the third one is indeed a real individual, but just not who the conspiracy theorists would like him to be.

To start with it is even surprising that conspiracy theorists should believe in that fairy tale. It doesn't make sense in the first place. It's against all logic. If there were conspirators, they used Oswald as a scapegoat. If he is to take the blame, it is obviously imperative that the conspirators control his movements and prevent him from getting out when the shots were fired. To my mind, if a scapegoat were seen by the public during the shooting, it would irreparably destroy the operation by giving him a golden alibi.

Besides,

- The picture (taken from the Jimmy Darnell film) is out of focus. You can't see anything at all, neither the contours nor the details. It is almost merely a dark spot. You can’t say for sure whether it's a man or a woman, and indeed some researchers have seriously suggested that it might be a woman. Admit it: at best, that blurry picture is hardly conclusive!

- Oswald's colleagues who were on the steps at the entrance to the TSBD have no recollection of seeing Oswald there (take Buell Frazier, for instance). I repeat: people who were there knew Oswald and not one of them saw him there. Nobody saw him. Nobody ever said that they saw him. And they had ample time to look!

- More to the point: Oswald himself never said he was there. On the contrary, he told the police he was inside the building. The debate ends right there! Please, why didn’t Lee Oswald ever tell his wife, or his brother, or the reporters that he was outside? Because he was inside! He said it himself! End of story!

- The "Prayer man" fiction is contrary to all existing testimony, including the statements of people such as Director Roy Truly and police officer Marrion Baker (who had never met before) or even Mrs. R. A. Reid, the clerical supervisor, who all saw Oswald inside the building, consistent with him having been inside all along.

- It is also contrary to all logic regarding Oswald's attitude. Again, if he had been leisurely outside the building during the shooting sequence, then why did he then decide to leave in a hurry without saying anything to anyone and go on to kill officer Tippit half an hour later?

Anyway…

There may still be issues worth debating about the Kennedy assassination but the “Prayer man” fiction is not one of them !

[Tom Gram]

46 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

While I too think the Bookhout report is in error about what Oswald said, Sandy's solution to this makes little sense. By re-arranging the passages he has Oswald take THIS Coke--the one he was buying when approached by Baker--down to the first floor and go outside...BEFORE Baker ever entered the building. 

Is this correct? If not, what am I missing? 

The report as written also makes little sense. It has Oswald going down to the domino room and eating lunch with the coke after the encounter with Baker. 

So either: 1) Oswald said nothing about the Baker encounter - and it was inserted into Bookhout’s report to impugn Oswald’s alibi for what he was doing at the time of the shooting; 2) Oswald mentioned two separate trips to the second floor lunchroom to buy a Coke, and Bookhout got confused by his own notes; or 3) some other scenario along those lines, like if Oswald mentioned the Baker encounter as a separate event, and Bookhout mixed up the timing to screw with Oswald’s alibi. 

Bookhout’s report makes perfect sense without the Baker encounter; and unless Oswald was a Coke fiend, it seems a little odd that he’d make two trips to the lunchroom in the span of about an hour to buy soda, so I think 1) is a credible explanation for what actually happened. 

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay, let me get this straight. According to you....

When Oswald was asked where he was as the motorcade went by, he lied and said he was on the first floor eating lunch. Then he said that he went to the second floor to get a coke, where he encountered Officer Baker. After that, he botched it and said he went back to the first floor and ate lunch (again).

Why would you say "ate lunch AGAIN"? Via Lie #1, he could be implying to Fritz/Bookhout/Hosty that he had already started to eat some of his lunch while he was on the first floor, then he went up to the second floor to get a Coke, then he came back down to the first floor to CONTINUE eating the rest of his lunch.

But it makes very little difference in exactly what ORDER Oswald told his lies. For they were still ALL LIES regarding anything he said about being on the first (or second) floor EATING LUNCH at around the time JFK was being shot. Because in reality, of course, Mr. Oswald was on the sixth floor aiming his Carcano rifle at John Kennedy's head at the exact moment when Mr. Kennedy was killed by gunfire.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / index / Lee Harvey Oswald

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Then, when James Hosty went to write this down, he wrote that Oswald said that he went outside to watch the P. Parade.

Geez Dave, how on earth did Hosty HEAR that?? When Oswald SAID he ate lunch twice, and met up with Baker on the second floor?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Lee Oswald's Whereabouts At 12:30 PM On November 22

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Sandy's solution to this makes little sense.

 

Pat,

My solution is that the Oswald/Baker second-floor encounter never happened. This is what Bart contends too. The encounter was fabricated to get Oswald to where the coverup artists wanted him to be when a police officer (Baker) was inside to witness him.

The supposed encounter was added to the interrogation report, after the report was finished.

Here's what the report originally said:

[Oswald] went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home.

We don't know exactly what was said in that first sentence, because the coverup artists replaced it with their phony story. But what I put there in blue is factual.... I got it from another of the interrogation reports.

So far the story makes sense.

But then the coverup artists replaced that first sentence with their phony second-floor encounter, which I show here in red.

Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home.

Now the story makes no sense because it says that Oswald had lunch after he had his supposed encounter with Officer Baker.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Why would you say "ate lunch AGAIN"? Via Lie #1, he could be implying to Fritz/Bookhout/Hosty that he had already started to eat some of his lunch while he was on the first floor, then he went up to the second floor to get a Coke, then he came back down to the first floor to CONTINUE eating the rest of his lunch.

But it makes very little difference in exactly what ORDER Oswald told his lies. For they were still ALL LIES regarding anything he said about being on the first (or second) floor EATING LUNCH at around the time JFK was being shot. Because in reality, of course, Mr. Oswald was on the sixth floor aiming his Carcano rifle at John Kennedy's head at the exact moment when Mr. Kennedy was killed by gunfire.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / index / Lee Harvey Oswald

 

Are you just trying to annoy people, David? Because this seems to be deliberately annoying. We KNOW we don't know exactly what was said in the interviews. We KNOW the only person to ID Oswald as the shooter refused to do so when it mattered, and only did so after a visit to his house by the FBI. We KNOW the shots purportedly fired by Oswald were beyond his presumed skill level, and could only have been fired from him if he got "lucky". .

So why are you SO SURE he was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting? What is it that nails it down for you? I know some will say that his demeanor after his arrest proves his guilt, but that, to me, is bonkers. 

[David Von Pein]

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Are you just trying to annoy people, David? Because this seems to be deliberately annoying. We KNOW we don't know exactly what was said in the interviews. We KNOW the only person to ID Oswald as the shooter refused to do so when it mattered, and only did so after a visit to his house by the FBI. We KNOW the shots purportedly fired by Oswald were beyond his presumed skill level, and could only have been fired from him if he got "lucky". So why are you SO SURE he was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting? What is it that nails it down for you?

Oh, for Pete sake, Pat! You're one of the most sensible and reasonable of all online CTers (without doubt). So how can you possibly pretend not to know all of the various things that "nail down" Oswald's guilt for an LNer like myself?

There are many many things that (collectively) "nail down" Oswald's guilt. None of which will ever satisfy a CTer, of course. But that's of little consequence in the long run.

Just start with these two items.....

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound John Connally.

2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.

Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh, for Pete sake, Pat! You're one of the most sensible and reasonable of all online CTers (without doubt). So how can you possibly pretend not to know all of the various things that "nail down" Oswald's guilt for an LNer like myself?

There are many many things that (collectively) "nail down" Oswald's guilt. None of which will ever satisfy a CTer, of course. But that's of little consequence in the long run.

Just start with these two items.....

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound John Connally.

2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.

Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.

 

You proved my point, David. You TRUST that it was Oswald's weapon. And you twist evidence to make it seem like he carried that weapon into the building. (No one saw him with a "bulky package", they saw him with a slender package too short to have held the rifle.) And you then say he lied "beyond a reasonable doubt" (a legal term) over something that was never tried, or even honestly investigated. YOU have convicted him, not based on the evidence, but on what you WANT the evidence to be.