What the WC's handling of Hosty's P. Parade note proves

[Alan Ford]

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Actually the inverse is true. The desperation with which certain people cling to prayer man etc is far more cringeworthy. Having spent time with FBI agents, I know it to be entirely possible Hosty misunderstood or misremembered something Oswald said, or worded it incorrectly in the draft of a report. But it remains possible Oswald did indeed say he was outside, and that there was a cover-up after he said this. Possible, but not likely.

Consider...one possibility has one man recollecting something incorrectly OR jotting it down incorrectly in a draft of a report. While the other possibility has numerous people, including this man, engaging in a cover-up for decades. Hmmm... Most people would assume the first possibility is more likely, but some people not only assume the second possibility is more likely, they claim it as a fact. What? 

I've been watching the growth of the prayer man cult since it was a baby. And it all comes down to that blurry photo, doesn't it?

Well, Mr. Speer, I would say that the continued pushing of the Prayer Man claim is as cringeworthy in its own way as your continued 'nothing to see here' gaslighting on the Hosty draft report. But at least the Prayer Man folks understand the glaring problems with the official interrogation reports, which you take as unimpeachable gospel written by honest men. It's why they're not in denial about what's actually in the Hosty report, whereas you so evidently are.

You dismiss, in a manner that would cheer a devout Warren Gullible, the idea of a decades-long cover-up of perhaps the single most important issue in the case (Mr. Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the assassination). On what grounds? That the 'investigation' into the assassination was an honest endeavor to establish the truth and only the truth? Really? Would you accept such a 'no cover up/these were honest folks' line from a Warren Gullible dismissing one of your own splendid lines of inquiry into manipulated evidence elsewhere in the case? Hardly.

And please don't tell me your rejection of the LHO Out Front claim is because no one went on the record with a recollection of having seen Mr. Oswald out on the front steps during the P. Parade. We have already established that no one went on the record with a recollection of having seen Mr. Oswald leave the building by the front door minutes after the assassination, yet this does not make you rule out the idea that he did indeed leave the building by the front door minutes after the assassination. Sorry, pure double standards-------------actually worse than that, as folks out front several minutes after the assassination were not every one of them focused on the motorcade and the loud bangs and the ensuing commotion.

Nor does your line that the claim that LHO's presence in the doorway was obscured by doctoring of images is defeated by the fact that Oswald's presence cannot be seen in the doorway constitute a serious argument. 

As for "one man recollecting something incorrectly", I'm afraid that doesn't wash when the something was the single most important issue in the entire interrogation: the suspect's claimed whereabouts at the time of the assassination. The idea that Agent Hosty would hear Mr. Oswald say he encountered a cop in the lunchroom, then went downstairs, then had lunch, and then went outside and saw all the commotion and write it down as this--------------

--------------is fanciful in the extreme. If Mr. Oswald said "I went outside to watch the parade but it had already passed and I saw all the commotion", then dontcha think Agent Hosty would have noted this all-important fact? If you have evidence he was cognitively impaired on 11/22/63, feel free to share it.

And ain't it funny Agent Hosty's draft report gets everything else right? Guess he must have tuned out when the side-issue of Mr. Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the assassination were being discussed. Happens all the time when accused Presidential assassins are being interrogated about their whereabouts at the time of the assassination. Nothing to see here, right?

It comes down to a simple question: If Mr. Oswald claimed to have gone out front, and if his claim checked out, would the 'investigating' authorities have told the world he hadn't done the shooting? Your answer seems to be 'Yes', which is pretty extraordinary in its naivety. And yet it's really the article of faith to which you cling.

Look, Mr. Speer, I get it. You really really really don't want Mr. Oswald to have gone out front, so much so that even the clearest of clear evidence that he himself claimed to have gone out front is anathema to you. You have a blind spot on this that makes your approach blinkered to the point of irrationality.

Ho hum.

[Pat Speer]

54 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Well, Mr. Speer, I would say that the continued pushing of the Prayer Man claim is as cringeworthy in its own way as your continued 'nothing to see here' gaslighting on the Hosty draft report. But at least the Prayer Man folks understand the glaring problems with the official interrogation reports, which you take as unimpeachable gospel written by honest men. It's why they're not in denial about what's actually in the Hosty report, whereas you so evidently are.

You dismiss, in a manner that would cheer a devout Warren Gullible, the idea of a decades-long cover-up of perhaps the single most important issue in the case (Mr. Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the assassination). On what grounds? That the 'investigation' into the assassination was an honest endeavor to establish the truth and only the truth? Really? Would you accept such a 'no cover up/these were honest folks' line from a Warren Gullible dismissing one of your own splendid lines of inquiry into manipulated evidence elsewhere in the case? Hardly.

And please don't tell me your rejection of the LHO Out Front claim is because no one went on the record with a recollection of having seen Mr. Oswald out on the front steps during the P. Parade. We have already established that no one went on the record with a recollection of having seen Mr. Oswald leave the building by the front door minutes after the assassination, yet this does not make you rule out the idea that he did indeed leave the building by the front door minutes after the assassination. Sorry, pure double standards-------------actually worse than that, as folks out front several minutes after the assassination were not every one of them focused on the motorcade and the loud bangs and the ensuing commotion.

Nor does your line that the claim that LHO's presence in the doorway was obscured by doctoring of images is defeated by the fact that Oswald's presence cannot be seen in the doorway constitute a serious argument. 

As for "one man recollecting something incorrectly", I'm afraid that doesn't wash when the something was the single most important issue in the entire interrogation: the suspect's claimed whereabouts at the time of the assassination. The idea that Agent Hosty would hear Mr. Oswald say he encountered a cop in the lunchroom, then went downstairs, then had lunch, and then went outside and saw all the commotion and write it down as this--------------

--------------is fanciful in the extreme. If Mr. Oswald said "I went outside to watch the parade but it had already passed and I saw all the commotion", then dontcha think Agent Hosty would have noted this all-important fact? If you have evidence he was cognitively impaired on 11/22/63, feel free to share it.

And ain't it funny Agent Hosty's draft report gets everything else right? Guess he must have tuned out when the side-issue of Mr. Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the assassination were being discussed. Happens all the time when accused Presidential assassins are being interrogated about their whereabouts at the time of the assassination. Nothing to see here, right?

It comes down to a simple question: If Mr. Oswald claimed to have gone out front, and if his claim checked out, would the 'investigating' authorities have told the world he hadn't done the shooting? Your answer seems to be 'Yes', which is pretty extraordinary in its naivety. And yet it's really the article of faith to which you cling.

Look, Mr. Speer, I get it. You really really really don't want Mr. Oswald to have gone out front, so much so that even the clearest of clear evidence that he himself claimed to have gone out front is anathema to you. You have a blind spot on this that makes your approach blinkered to the point of irrationality.

Ho hum.

Merry Christmas. But you're just wrong. I have always stressed the need to look at the big picture--at all the evidence. In this case we have a theory that a man was standing out in public. 

So...are there any photos of this man out in public? There is a blurry image which sorta looks like him, but is far from conclusive.

So...are there any witnesses to his being in the location of the blurry image? No, there are a number of witnesses who claimed to be standing near where the blurry person was standing, and none of them reported this man standing there, and several said flat out that they did not see him standing there.

So...are there any reports or testimony to indicate he was standing there? Sorta. A draft of a report written by one of the half dozen men to interview this man has a vague phrase that suggests he was indeed outside, but does not specify exactly where he was standing. This draft, moreover, is contradicted by the notes of this man, and the notes, statements, and testimony of a number of others. 

You have like two pieces to a puzzle that would need 50 pieces before you could claim what it shows. And yet some think they have a smoking gun. 

Pareidolia...

[Alan Ford]

12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Merry Christmas. But you're just wrong. I have always stressed the need to look at the big picture--at all the evidence. In this case we have a theory that a man was standing out in public. 

So...are there any photos of this man out in public? There is a blurry image which sorta looks like him, but is far from conclusive.

So...are there any witnesses to his being in the location of the blurry image? No, there are a number of witnesses who claimed to be standing near where the blurry person was standing, and none of them reported this man standing there, and several said flat out that they did not see him standing there.

So...are there any reports or testimony to indicate he was standing there? Sorta. A draft of a report written by one of the half dozen men to interview this man has a vague phrase that suggests he was indeed outside, but does not specify exactly where he was standing. This draft, moreover, is contradicted by the notes of this man, and the notes, statements, and testimony of a number of others. 

You have like two pieces to a puzzle that would need 50 pieces before you could claim what it shows. And yet some think they have a smoking gun. 

Pareidolia...

Good grief, this is just another heaping of weaker than weak sauce, Mr. Speer.............

"So...are there any photos of this man out in public? There is a blurry image which sorta looks like him, but is far from conclusive."

A lame recycle of 'We know his image wasn't obscured by the fact that there is no clear image of him'. Totally circular logic.

As for the "blurry image" you think I'm talking about, 'Prayer Man' doesn't look anything like Mr. Oswald-----------------we know this from the Kamp frame recently made public. He was elsewhere in that doorway.

"So...are there any witnesses to his being in the location of the blurry image? No, there are a number of witnesses who claimed to be standing near where the blurry person was standing, and none of them reported this man standing there, and several said flat out that they did not see him standing there."

i) ~Yawn~ He's not Prayer Man

ii) You're still hoist on your own petard with your 'no witnesses' claim----------there are no witnesses to another front entranceway event which you are perfectly open to, because it does not bring out irrational bias in you

"So...are there any reports or testimony to indicate he was standing there? Sorta. A draft of a report written by one of the half dozen men to interview this man has a vague phrase that suggests he was indeed outside, but does not specify exactly where he was standing. This draft, moreover, is contradicted by the notes of this man, and the notes, statements, and testimony of a number of others. "

"A vague phrase", lol. Your 'interpretation' of "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" is that it doesn't mean "Then went outside to watch P. Parade". Ridiculous.

Which "notes" of Agent Hosty contradict what's in his draft report?

"You have like two pieces to a puzzle that would need 50 pieces before you could claim what it shows. And yet some think they have a smoking gun."

"Two pieces", lol

"Pareidolia..."

~Yawwwwwwwwwwwn~ You're still mistaking me for a Prayer Man advocate.

If you're so sure of your ground, explain the Lovelady 'shadow' in Wiegman. No one else has been able to.

If you wish to be on the wrong side of the single most important issue in the entire case, Mr. Speer, that's on you. The weakness of your arguments speaks for itself. A pity, given the fine work you've done elsewhere.

But hey---------------------------------a very Merry Christmas to you too! Have a good one 🎄🎅

[Tony Krome]

Pat, Which TSBD personnel are your candidates that were closest in distance to Oswald as he departed the building?

[Pat Speer]

14 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Good grief, this is just another heaping of weaker than weak sauce, Mr. Speer.............

"So...are there any photos of this man out in public? There is a blurry image which sorta looks like him, but is far from conclusive."

A lame recycle of 'We know his image wasn't obscured by the fact that there is no clear image of him'. Totally circular logic.

As for the "blurry image" you think I'm talking about, 'Prayer Man' doesn't look anything like Mr. Oswald-----------------we know this from the Kamp frame recently made public. He was elsewhere in that doorway.

"So...are there any witnesses to his being in the location of the blurry image? No, there are a number of witnesses who claimed to be standing near where the blurry person was standing, and none of them reported this man standing there, and several said flat out that they did not see him standing there."

i) ~Yawn~ He's not Prayer Man

ii) You're still hoist on your own petard with your 'no witnesses' claim----------there are no witnesses to another front entranceway event which you are perfectly open to, because it does not bring out irrational bias in you

"So...are there any reports or testimony to indicate he was standing there? Sorta. A draft of a report written by one of the half dozen men to interview this man has a vague phrase that suggests he was indeed outside, but does not specify exactly where he was standing. This draft, moreover, is contradicted by the notes of this man, and the notes, statements, and testimony of a number of others. "

"A vague phrase", lol. Your 'interpretation' of "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" is that it doesn't mean "Then went outside to watch P. Parade". Ridiculous.

Which "notes" of Agent Hosty contradict what's in his draft report?

"You have like two pieces to a puzzle that would need 50 pieces before you could claim what it shows. And yet some think they have a smoking gun."

"Two pieces", lol

"Pareidolia..."

~Yawwwwwwwwwwwn~ You're still mistaking me for a Prayer Man advocate.

If you're so sure of your ground, explain the Lovelady 'shadow' in Wiegman. No one else has been able to.

If you wish to be on the wrong side of the single most important issue in the entire case, Mr. Speer, that's on you. The weakness of your arguments speaks for itself. A pity, given the fine work you've done elsewhere.

But hey---------------------------------a very Merry Christmas to you too! Have a good one 🎄🎅

So you believe Prayer Man is not Oswald. Shocking. 

Because you believe he was elsewhere on the steps. Even more shocking. 

[Pat Speer]

14 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Pat, Which TSBD personnel are your candidates that were closest in distance to Oswald as he departed the building?

I'm not convinced he left by the front door, if that's what you're getting at. 

But it's certainly possible he left by that door and walked right past everyone while they were looking the other way.

My own theory, based upon re-reading all the TSBD employee and DPD statements and testimony,  is that he encountered Shelley as he went outside. This is discussed in my Pinning the Tale on the Oswald chapter. Shelley said he was told to watch the elevator. People ASSumed he was talking about the rear elevator. But he also said he took an officer upstairs, and this officer was obviously Sawyer, who said he was taken up in the front elevator to the fourth floor. In any event, the timing works out where Oswald's purported departure by the front stairs puts him in front of the elevator just before Sawyer's arrival. In such case he would have walked past Shelley and maybe even said something to him, before leaving. Shelley, we should recall, ran over to look at the activity in the train yards before running back into the building to call his wife. It follows then that he did not believe the shots came from the building. If Oswald had said to him "I'm going outside to see what's going on," he would have said "Fine!" It could be, even, that Oswald asked Shelley if he could leave, and Shelley said "Why not? We're not gonna be able to resume work!" So, yeah, go..." But we'll never know. 

And yes, I think it's possible Shelley lied about this encounter, when he said it never happened. I mean, think about it. Admitting as much would make him a suspect, and lead people to point fingers at him for the rest of his life. He wouldn't have wanted that. 

[Alan Ford]

On 12/24/2023 at 5:40 PM, Pat Speer said:

I'm not convinced he left by the front door, if that's what you're getting at. 

But it's certainly possible he left by that door and walked right past everyone while they were looking the other way.

My own theory, based upon re-reading all the TSBD employee and DPD statements and testimony,  is that he encountered Shelley as he went outside. This is discussed in my Pinning the Tale on the Oswald chapter. Shelley said he was told to watch the elevator. People ASSumed he was talking about the rear elevator. But he also said he took an officer upstairs, and this officer was obviously Sawyer, who said he was taken up in the front elevator to the fourth floor. In any event, the timing works out where Oswald's purported departure by the front stairs puts him in front of the elevator just before Sawyer's arrival. In such case he would have walked past Shelley and maybe even said something to him, before leaving. Shelley, we should recall, ran over to look at the activity in the train yards before running back into the building to call his wife. It follows then that he did not believe the shots came from the building. If Oswald had said to him "I'm going outside to see what's going on," he would have said "Fine!" It could be, even, that Oswald asked Shelley if he could leave, and Shelley said "Why not? We're not gonna be able to resume work!" So, yeah, go..." But we'll never know. 

And yes, I think it's possible Shelley lied about this encounter, when he said it never happened. I mean, think about it. Admitting as much would make him a suspect, and lead people to point fingers at him for the rest of his life. He wouldn't have wanted that. 

Let's distill your argument here, Mr. Speer:

1. To suggest that LHO could have been in the front doorway for a short time during the motorcade, when everyone's attention was on the motorcade, without anyone going on the record afterwards about seeing him there is-----plain crazy.

1a. To suggest that LHO was in the front doorway several minutes after the motorcade, when nobody's attention was on the motorcade, without anyone going on the record afterwards about seeing him there, is-----perfectly reasonable.

2. To suggest that someone would lie about whether they saw or interacted with LHO in the front doorway at the time of the motorcade is-----plain crazy.

2a. To suggest that someone would lie about whether they saw or interacted with LHO in the front doorway several minutes after the motorcade is-----perfectly reasonable.

This is not joined-up thinking. It's just gaslighting.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Let's distill your argument here, Mr. Speer:

1. To suggest that LHO could have been in the front doorway for a short time during the motorcade, when everyone's attention was on the motorcade, without anyone going on the record afterwards about seeing him there is-----plain crazy.

1a. To suggest that LHO was in the front doorway several minutes after the motorcade, when nobody's attention was on the motorcade, without anyone going on the record afterwards about seeing him there, is-----perfectly reasonable.

2. To suggest that someone would lie about whether they saw or interacted with LHO in the front doorway at the time of the motorcade is-----plain crazy.

2a. To suggest that someone would lie about whether they saw or interacted with LHO in the front doorway several minutes after the motorcade is-----perfectly reasonable.

This is not joined-up thinking. It's just gaslighting.

Nope. I am not averse to suggesting anything. What I am against is looking at a blurry image and then picking this or that statement and then claiming you've proved something that doesn't make a lot of sense. 

Could Oswald have stepped outside? Sure. 

Could Oswald have stepped outside without anyone's noticing him? Doubtful. 

Does the Prayer Man image show Oswald? Doubtful.

Have those claiming the image shows Prayer Man successfully identified every person on the steps, and demonstrated that the figure is likely to have been Oswald? Nope. 

It should also be noted that your comparison is apples and oranges. 

We know Oswald left the building at some time. He is purported to have claimed he'd encountered a person (later identified as a journalist) near the front entrance. He is purported to have claimed he'd left by the front entrance. So it is not unreasonable to believe he left by the front entrance.

We don't know if Oswald went outside during his lunch hour. He may have. He may have not. He is purported to have claimed he was on the first floor at the time of the shooting, however. And he was given plenty of opportunity to proclaim his innocence to his family and the public and tell them he was in fact outside at the time of the shooting, but did not. And when asked by reporters where he was at the time of the shooting, his own words suggested he was yessiree inside the building. So it is on the surface unlikely he was outside at the time of the shooting.

Now, is there anything beneath the surface that could change this? Of course. There were a number of people on those steps who could have seen Oswald. Any number of them could have left diaries in which they said they saw Oswald outside. Or perhaps Bill Shelley taped an interview to be released 50 years after his death in which he claimed he really did talk to Oswald within seconds of the shooting, or some such thing. Or perhaps Buell Frazier will say he'd been talking to Oswald on steps, and had been threatened, etc. There's a number of things that could tip the scales over to Oswald's being outside at the time of the shooting.

History is written in pencil, after all. 

 

 

[Alan Ford]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Nope. I am not averse to suggesting anything. What I am against is looking at a blurry image and then picking this or that statement and then claiming you've proved something that doesn't make a lot of sense. 

Could Oswald have stepped outside? Sure. 

Could Oswald have stepped outside without anyone's noticing him? Doubtful. 

Does the Prayer Man image show Oswald? Doubtful.

Have those claiming the image shows Prayer Man successfully identified every person on the steps, and demonstrated that the figure is likely to have been Oswald? Nope. 

It should also be noted that your comparison is apples and oranges. 

We know Oswald left the building at some time. He is purported to have claimed he'd encountered a person (later identified as a journalist) near the front entrance. He is purported to have claimed he'd left by the front entrance. So it is not unreasonable to believe he left by the front entrance.

We don't know if Oswald went outside during his lunch hour. He may have. He may have not. He is purported to have claimed he was on the first floor at the time of the shooting, however. And he was given plenty of opportunity to proclaim his innocence to his family and the public and tell them he was in fact outside at the time of the shooting, but did not. And when asked by reporters where he was at the time of the shooting, his own words suggested he was yessiree inside the building. So it is on the surface unlikely he was outside at the time of the shooting.

Now, is there anything beneath the surface that could change this? Of course. There were a number of people on those steps who could have seen Oswald. Any number of them could have left diaries in which they said they saw Oswald outside. Or perhaps Bill Shelley taped an interview to be released 50 years after his death in which he claimed he really did talk to Oswald within seconds of the shooting, or some such thing. Or perhaps Buell Frazier will say he'd been talking to Oswald on steps, and had been threatened, etc. There's a number of things that could tip the scales over to Oswald's being outside at the time of the shooting.

History is written in pencil, after all.

More weak and confused arguments, alas, and all too easily disposed of:

1. Unlike you, I believe Mr. Oswald was in the front doorway at 12:30pm; like you, I believe he was there several minutes later (as he exited the building for the last time). The only sense in which these two questions are (to use your phrase) "apples and oranges" is that at 12:30pm the attention of everyone in the crowded doorway was fixed on something away from the doorway (the P. Parade, the shots), whereas such would not have been the case several minutes later. Therefore it would have been easier for Mr. Oswald to go unnoticed in the first instance than in the second. You have things precisely back to front.

2. Did Mr. Shelley "tape[] an interview to be released 50 years after his death in which he claimed he really did talk to Oswald" at the front entrance a few minutes after the shooting? Nope. Did anyone else in that area at that time leave "diaries in which they said they saw Oswald outside" on the steps a few minutes after the shooting? Nope. Do these facts render the notion "doubtful" in your book? Nope-----------that word only kicks in with respect to Mr. Oswald's having been in that doorway a few minutes earlier than that. Pure double standards.

3. As you well know, since 2019 we do have evidence, and darn strong evidence at that (the Hosty draft interrogation report), that Mr. Oswald claimed he "went outside to watch P. Parade" after breaking for lunch, buying a Coke and coming back down to one to eat. Your solution to this inconvenient piece of evidence-----------to 'interpret' "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" as not meaning "Then went outside to watch P. Parade"------------remains ridiculous.

4. Mr. Oswald may well have been manipulated by Capt. Fritz into thinking he was on the hook not as 6th floor shooter but for involvement in a pro-Castro assassination plot. Hence he may not have realized he even needed an alibi for the shooting itself, let alone to proclaim to the world what his exact whereabouts at 12:30pm had been.

5. "And when asked by reporters where he was at the time of the shooting, his own words suggested he was yessiree inside the building". 'Suggested'? Perhaps. Stated? Nope. The roofed, enclosed front entrance was part of the building: Mr. Oswald, in his snap reply to the reporter, may very well have considered "in the building" to be an adequate description of his whereabouts at the time. He was in the building, and not at some other place in Dealey Plaza or Dallas. And he does not use, or endorse the use of, the word "inside". (Warren Gullibles love pretending that he does.)

6. As I have already explained ad nauseam, this is not (for me anyway) about "a blurry image": Prayer Man is a woman, no question at this stage.

7. I am claiming that Mr. Oswald is in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Billy Lovelady at the time of the shooting, and gone from the steps by the time of Darnell. If you think I'm talking nonsense, then please feel free to do what not a single person has been able to do to date: explain the absurd darkness down Mr. Lovelady in all the Wiegman doorway frames. The man was standing in full, unobstructed sunlight. You should also of course feel free to ignore the challenge, as you have done several times to date. And I, and others, can draw our own conclusions from your continued evasion of the Lovelady-in-Wiegman problem, and from your continued misrepresentation of this debate as centering on Prayer Man.

7. "Now, is there anything beneath the surface that could change this? Of course. [...] There's a number of things that could tip the scales over to Oswald's being outside at the time of the shooting." A number of such things have already happened, Mr. Speer, starting with the unearthing in 2019 of the Hosty draft report. You just don't want the thing they point to to be true, and find yourself having to resort to arguments so lame and self-contradictory they must be making Mr. Von Pein jealous!

Edited January 27 by Alan Ford

[Pat Speer]

18 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

More weak and confused arguments, alas, and all too easily disposed of:

1. I believe Mr. Oswald was in the front doorway at 12:30pm; like you, I also believe he was there several minutes later (as he exited the building for the last time). The only sense in which these two questions are (to use your phrase) "apples and oranges" is that at 12:30pm the attention of everyone in the crowded doorway was fixed on something away from the doorway (the P. Parade, the shots), whereas such would not have been the case several minutes later. Therefore it would have been easier for Mr. Oswald to go unnoticed in the first instance than in the second. You have things precisely back to front.

2. Did Mr. Shelley "tape[] an interview to be released 50 years after his death in which he claimed he really did talk to Oswald" at the front entrance a few minutes after the shooting? Nope. Did anyone else in that area at that time leave "diaries in which they said they saw Oswald outside" on the steps a few minutes after the shooting? Nope. Do these facts render the notion "doubtful" in your book? Nope-----------that word only kicks in with respect to Mr. Oswald's having been in that doorway a few minutes earlier than that. Pure double standards.

3. As you well know, since 2019 we do have evidence, and darn strong evidence at that (the Hosty draft interrogation report), that Mr. Oswald claimed he "went outside to watch P. Parade" after breaking for lunch, buying a Coke and coming back down to one to eat. Your solution to this inconvenient piece of evidence-----------to 'interpret' "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" as not meaning "Then went outside to watch P. Parade"------------remains ridiculous.

4. Mr. Oswald may well have been manipulated by Capt. Fritz into thinking he was on the hook not as 6th floor shooter but for involvement in a pro-Castro assassination plot. Hence he may not have realized he even needed an alibi for the shooting itself, let alone to proclaim to the world what his exact whereabouts at 12:30pm had been.

5. "And when asked by reporters where he was at the time of the shooting, his own words suggested he was yessiree inside the building". 'Suggested'? Perhaps. Stated? Nope. The roofed, enclosed front entrance was part of the building: Mr. Oswald, in his snap reply to the reporter, may very well have considered "in the building" to be an adequate description of his whereabouts at the time. He was in the building, and not at some other place in Dealey Plaza or Dallas. And he does not use, or endorse the use of, the word "inside". (Warren Gullibles love pretending that he does.)

6. As I have already explained ad nauseam, this is not (for me anyway) about "a blurry image": Prayer Man is a woman, no question at this stage.

7. I am claiming that Mr. Oswald is in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Billy Lovelady at the time of the shooting, and gone from the steps by the time of Darnell. If you think I'm talking nonsense, then please feel free to do what not a single person has been able to do to date: explain the absurd darkness down Mr. Lovelady in all the Wiegman doorway frames. The man was standing in full, unobstructed sunlight. You should also of course feel free to ignore the challenge, as you have done several times to date. And I, and others, can draw our own conclusions from your continued evasion of the Lovelady-in-Wiegman problem, and from your continued misrepresentation of this debate as centering on Prayer Man.

7. "Now, is there anything beneath the surface that could change this? Of course. [...] There's a number of things that could tip the scales over to Oswald's being outside at the time of the shooting." A number of such things have already happened, Mr. Speer, starting with the unearthing in 2019 of the Hosty draft report. You just don't want the thing they point to to be true, and find yourself having to resort to arguments so lame and self-contradictory they must be making Mr. Von Pein jealous!

What the flip? 

I've already addressed the Hosty draft report a dozen times. It is not a smoking gun.

1. He could have misunderstood Oswald.

2. He could have remembered it incorrectly.

3. His words were not entirely clear as to when Oswald said he went outside to view the parade, or even what he meant by parade.

4. Hosty's subsequent statements and activities suggest it did not say what people assume it to say.

5. Oswald spoke to the press and to his family a number of times in the 48 hours after the assassination, and said nothing to the press or to his family about being outside when the shots were fired. 

6. No one saw him outside at the time of the shooting. 

Conclusion: the frequent claim the report suggests or even proves that Oswald was actually outside at the time of the shooting is not supported by the evidence, all the evidence. Period. 

It is best to look at this kind of stuff from multiple angles, IMO.

There is a report--not a draft of a report--in which Harry Holmes claims Oswald said he was upstairs at the time of the shooting. But we don't believe it. And we shouldn't believe it, because it is in conflict with the rest of the evidence.

Well, the same is true of the Hosty draft... Even if we assume it says what people like to claim it says (that Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting), we shouldn't believe it because it is in conflict with the rest off the evidence.  

Edited January 27 by Pat Speer

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

What the flip? 

I've already addressed the Hosty draft report a dozen times. It is not a smoking gun.

1. He could have misunderstood Oswald.

2. He could have remembered it incorrectly.

He could have misunderstood, or remembered incorrectly, Mr. Oswald's response to the single most important question he's asked in interrogation? That's quite a stretch, Mr. Speer.

Much more likely: Agent Hosty correctly recorded what Mr. Oswald had said; because what Mr. Oswald had said was a disaster to the case against him as shooter, it was subsequently buried in the official interrogation reports.

[Alan Ford]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

3. His words were not entirely clear as to when Oswald said he went outside to view the parade, or even what he meant by parade.

Right------maybe Mr. Oswald was talking about that year's Dallas Pride Parade, lol.

As for when Mr. Oswald said he went outside to view the parade, the clue is in that last word: it was at the time of the parade. The front door was made of glass. This had the consequence that Mr. Oswald could see out onto the street before he went through the door. The chances of him going outside during the immediate post-shots pandemonium thinking he's going to see the soon-to-arrive P. Parade and then being shocked to walk into a scene of post-Parade chaos are as close to zilch as it gets.

Besides, had Mr. Oswald followed up with, "But the President had already passed by the time I got out there, and I heard there had been shots", dontcha think Agent Hosty would have included this crucial detail in his draft report? But no, he is content to leave it at: "Then went outside to watch P. Parade".

Smoking gun.

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

6. No one saw him outside at the time of the shooting. 

According to the same official record, no one saw him in that doorway several minutes after the shooting either. Yet you believe he was in that doorway several minutes after the shooting.

Complete double standards.

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, the same is true of the Hosty draft... Even if we assume it says what people like to claim it says (that Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting), we shouldn't believe it because it is in conflict with the rest off the evidence. 

No it isn't.

But hey, if you really believe it is, and are secure in the correctness of your belief, give us an innocent explanation for the ridiculous darkness that falls down Mr. Lovelady's side in the Wiegman film.

You can't, can you?

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

[Regarding the P. Parade, Hosty] could have misunderstood, or remembered incorrectly, Mr. Oswald's response to the single most important question he's asked in interrogation? That's quite a stretch, Mr. Speer.

 

Alan,

Mr. Speer has a hard time distinguishing between the truth and the Warren Commission's fabricated official narrative. Sometimes so much so that it seems like he believes there was no coverup at all... just a bunch of misunderstandings.

The Parkland doctors, for example. According to Pat, they all accidentally thought the top of the head was the back because he was lying down, and therefore said the gaping wound was there. See, no coverup there!