Proof that Pat Speer has no interest in the facts

Fri 15 Jul 2022, 12:52 pm

First topic message reminder :

From Morley's Pit of Dispair

PAT SPEER
SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 AT 5:55 PM
"Well, these responses prove my point. One person says the Prayer Man figure-which to me is almost certainly a woman-is clearly a man, and that we can therefore assume it is Oswald."

Disingenuous to the max. The person in question said that the figure had all of the features of Oswald, that all other males from the building had been ruled out and that no one admitted seeing any strangers.

"This is ridiculous. it’s a blurry picture. Oswald, from what we can tell, never said he was out on the steps."

Of course, we now know he did say exactly that... and by saying this, Speer was suggesting that it may be evidence that could sway him. He is now aware of the Hosty note, but has it moved Speer one iota? No, it has not. Because for him and others, it s not about the facts - it is in crushing anything that threatens his shibboleths

"And no one who was out on the steps has ever said he was out on the steps. I mean, we would be on firmer ground claiming the figure is Jesus, than Oswald. At least Jesus wasn’t asked where he was at the time of the shots, and then failed to say he was out on the steps."

If you were inside when you thought the shots were fired, why would you say you were outside? Because that is where Oswald was when he thought the assassination occured.

An elightening thread on the mindset of certain types.
https://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/

Mon 15 Aug 2022, 6:51 pm

Same with Gilbride. He had a falling out with ROKC and soon turned against PM.

Tue 16 Aug 2022, 1:01 am

greg_parker wrote:

steely_dan wrote:

greg_parker wrote:From Morley's Pit of Dispair

PAT SPEER
SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 AT 5:55 PM
"Well, these responses prove my point. One person says the Prayer Man figure-which to me is almost certainly a woman-is clearly a man, and that we can therefore assume it is Oswald."

Disingenuous to the max. The person in question said that the figure had all of the features of Oswald, that all other males from the building had been ruled out and that no one admitted seeing any strangers.

"This is ridiculous. it’s a blurry picture. Oswald, from what we can tell, never said he was out on the steps."

Of course, we now know he did say exactly that... and by saying this, Speer was suggesting that it may be evidence that could sway him. He is now aware of the Hosty note, but has it moved Speer one iota? No, it has not. Because for him and others, it s not about the facts - it is in crushing anything that threatens his shibboleths

"And no one who was out on the steps has ever said he was out on the steps. I mean, we would be on firmer ground claiming the figure is Jesus, than Oswald. At least Jesus wasn’t asked where he was at the time of the shots, and then failed to say he was out on the steps."

If you were inside when you thought the shots were fired, why would you say you were outside? Because that is where Oswald was when he thought the assassination occured.

An elightening thread on the mindset of certain types.
https://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/

He's a denial monkey, pure and simple. Why? That's the question.

It goes back to when Lee Farley and I had a disagreement with Lifton on the 13 inch head forum about Bledsoe and the bus ride.

Lifton replied with one of his bloviated piles of condescending dung - to which we both took exception and let him have both barrels. This caused a stir among the mods with Pat coming on and posting that me and Lee should be honored to be taught a lesson by Lifton.

So of course, we then aimed both barrels at Speer... and it has been a regular "love-fest" ever since. Part of his petty revenge - as it was with Doyle - was and is in attacking PM.

He is now FORCED to say that Hosty's note saying Oswald went outside to watch the P Parade doesn't really mean what it states - because he made the comment on JFKFacts several years ago - "this is ridiculous. it’s a blurry picture. Oswald, from what we can tell, never said he was out on the steps." (which was post-Lifton blow-up)

His ongoing denial - even in the face of Hosty's note, is as disingenuous as it gets.

Yes, i remember that well. As for Speer...he comes across as a version of Doyle that managed to leave Mom's basement. Brian is offering to help Pat...perhaps he needs it.

Tue 16 Aug 2022, 1:14 am

Pat Speer @ The Thirteen Inch Head forum

To my mind it's time to put up or shut up. Instead of finding ways to twist what we thought we knew to fit the possibility the films show Oswald, someone needs to step up and make the films available. It can be done. I have every confidence.

Because my own story tells me it can be done. At one point I was obsessed with the possibility the supposedly light brown shirt in the archives was in fact the reddish shirt Oswald claimed he'd worn to work on the 22nd. So I nagged the archives into selling me color pictures of this shirt

Comparing prunes and kiwifruit.

If it can be done, and you really support the effort as you claim, then do it! Rub our faces in it afterwards. Wouldn't that be satisfying?

members here have

~gone through the copyright owners (NBC) and offered to pay for scans. They refused.
~written to them putting the case for the releasing the films without getting an answer
~gone to Stone's company for help without success
~told NARA of the importance of the films and that she should be acquired as bona fide assassination records under the JFK Act. They refuised.

But all is not lost. Bart has a lead on an early gen copy. But hey, like I said, knock yourself out in case Bart is full of shit (as I am certain you will be hoping).

I was fed a lot of crap, but eventually prevailed and got the pictures I needed. And yes, they proved the shirt was in fact a reddish shirt and almost certainly the shirt Oswald claimed he'd worn to work.

Yes, it was the same shirt. He went straight to the Texas Theatre from work, so why wouldn't it be?

At another point I was obsessed with the neutron analysis performed on Oswald's cheek casts. These tests were performed to see if Oswald had fired a rifle on 11-22-63, but the FBI said these tests were tainted by having too much barium on the control side. Well, this made little sense.

The NAA tests were invalidated because of the cheek cast being contaminated on the non-contact side.

From Oak Ridge National Laboratories Review March 1965

Proof that Pat Speer has no interest in the facts - Page 2 Oswald13

What about the other ingredient of gunshot residue, antimony? What were the numbers for antimony? If the numbers for antimony were low, it would suggest Oswald's innocence, no matter how much barium was on the flip side.

Gibberish.

Unfortunately, however, the FBI's expert, John Gallagher, failed to mention these numbers in his testimony. Well, from reading Harold Weisberg's book Post Mortem, I came to realize that he had sued the government for access to the working papers for these tests, and had succeeded. They just dumped a box off at his door, if I recall. Well, this led me to contact the Librarian at Hood Library, where Weisberg's papers were kept, to see if she could find these papers and make them available to me for a price. She agreed. And sure enough, she came through. A few weeks later I received a CD-rom in the mail of the hundreds of pages of documents Weisberg had received about the testing, which had been digitized by an unsung hero named Clay Ogilvie. Included within these papers were the numbers for antimony. They indicated Oswald had not fired a rifle. While I would subsequently learn that, yes, there was a possibility this was a false negative, as the paraffin tests were not performed within the recommended time span, there was no legitimate reason to dismiss these results out of hand and conceal them from the public, as had been done.

More gibberish.

You have a window of 6 to 8 hours. If you miss that window, you will not find GSR at all.,. unless the suspect has picked up nitrates from another source in the interim. The paraffin test was right at the end of that window - about 8 hours after the Tippit murder.

The point, then, is that I'm hoping those pissed off by my questioning the evidence for Prayer Man will put their money where their mouth is, and receive and share the access to the films they claim is necessary to prove their case.

No, the point is, this is about you having a fragile ego and still harboring "revenge" for being made look the total dick you are several years ago over your protection of Lifton. Petty, vindictive little man.

Sadly, however, I'm betting they'll do nothing...other than bitch about me...

Well Pat - post the URL to this thread and let readers make up there own mind.

Tue 16 Aug 2022, 11:33 am

pat speer@the thirteen inch head forum wrote:Let me be clear. I supported the investigation into Prayer Man when it first popped up on this forum.

LOL. Absolute bullshit. You were out from the get-go to try and quash the research effort. That was about a year after the run-in with Lee Farley and myself over your support of Liften's attacks on us. Support that you gave as a moderator. The forum was originally designed by Simkins as a place for authors to come and sell their wares. All other posters were either cheer squad members for the likes of Lifton and Armstrong or else just making up the numbers. So authors (which I was not at the time) were protected species.

Authors = clicks and it did not matter to Simkins what shit they were selling to the faithful.

Your first attempt at avenging your humiliation was in claiming the figure was Lovelady.

On 8/18/2013 at 6:08 PM, Pat Speer said:
I suspect the man in the film is Lovelady. Baker was at the front steps within what? 20 seconds of the shooting? There's no reason to believe Lovelady had left the stairs by then.

Murphy shot that down in record time and you did stfu for a few pages after that.

Your next tactic was to attack Holmes' testimony about an encounter at the front entrance by claiming the report was done weeks after the interrigation and based on memory only, since you claimed that Holmes took no notes.

You're right about Holmes, Ray. His report was written weeks after the interview he'd witnessed, and was not based on any notes. It's obvious 1) his memory was not very good, and 2) he'd added in stuff he'd heard from others. One of the major embarrassments in Bugliosi's book, IMO, is his propping up of Holmes' report to claim Oswald admitted being on an upper floor at the time of the shooting.

AS IF FRITZ WOULDN"T HAVE NOTICED SUCH A THING! LOL.

In fact you repeated this lie about Holmes not taking any notes more than once, It is the halmark of someone trying to win an argument rather than get to the facts, to slip in bullshit like that and hope no one checks.

Mr. BELIN. Do you have any notes from which you dictated this interview?
Mr. HOLMES. I had a few notes. I had no reason for such a statement except that about that time the FBI asked me they learned that I had been in on this interrogation, and asked me if I would object to giving them a statement as to what went on in that room, and this is my statement. Part of it was from notes and part of it was from memory.

When I began to offer some alternatives to the "man" being Oswald, however, I saw that those smitten with the idea it was Oswald were not nearly as open-minded. They had solved the case. They then began tearing apart every part of the "official" narrative that conflicted with their belief, and attacking every person, including me, who questioned their belief.

More bullshit. No one personally attacked you in that thread. Your ludicrous claims were. You were not personally attacked over your PM take until much later when benefit of the doubt about your motives could no longer be given.

Your other contributions were

Stating that proponents had to ID everyone on the steps. Not a ludicrous idea and had at least partially been done at the time - and since then, more completely.

You then claimed that process of elimination did not rule out a random from the street - while also claiming that this possibility was not accepted by proponents. More bullshit. What has been said is quite different. It could be a random stranger, but for various reasons, that did not seem likely.

Finally, you claimed it was Sarah Stanton. The most risible claim possible. Please explain how you get from the macho Lovelady to a short, obese grey-haied female?

And somewhere in there, you pointed out in 2015 that Oswald never said he went out to watch the parade. The only logical reason for saying that would be in suggesting that had he said it, you might be more inclined to consider it. Four years later, evidence pops up that he DID in fact say it. Your response? The note does not mean what it literally says.

It was most disturbing and a huge distraction from the investigation of the case, IMO. So I took a back seat and waited for their zeal to die down. I thought that in time better versions of the films would become available and people would see for themselves that they'd been seeing what they'd wanted to see. Or not. I had no dog in the hunt. If it turned out to be Oswald in the films I would have been surprised, but not displeased.

What is disturbing is your determination to cast your self as the victim. Very Doylesque. Fuck you and the unicorn you rode in on.

Tue 16 Aug 2022, 11:49 am

I think Pat does not want it to be Oswald. He would rather have the case dragged on for a few more decades.

Wed 17 Aug 2022, 1:46 pm

Gotta admire the gall..

Speer said The point, then, is that I'm hoping those pissed off by my questioning the evidence for Prayer Man will put their money where their mouth is, and receive and share the access to the films they claim is necessary to prove their case.

When asked by Paul Bacon exactly who is "bitching" about him [in regard to PM]he starts a long eamble about how he has had veiled death threats from Lone Nutters and a nice little and totally irrelevant anecdote from his college days as would-be debater on philosophy. His attempt to make it somehow vaguely relevant comes right at the with the Big Reveal that Christians rely on something called "faith" - which really just amounts to a logical fallacy of false equivalence.

He never does answer the question. Pat. I'm right here. I am the one ragging you out. You can say it. Let readers come here and judge for themselves if what I say is warranted.

Thu 18 Aug 2022, 8:13 pm

Pat's first post on the Oswald leaving TSBD thread.

Proof that Pat Speer has no interest in the facts - Page 2 Scree210

Tue 30 Aug 2022, 7:04 pm

Pat never gives up.

Many of the most prominent members of the research community are of a similar mindset. Avoid the internet at all costs. I have met and dined with and even spent the night at the house of some of the big names in CT land, and they will call me up to ask me a question about something that I discuss in detail on my website. And what I say will come as a surprise. They know I know something about whatever it is they are calling me about, but have never taken the time to read my website or watch my videos.

There's a bubble in CT land much as there's a bubble in this country. While "prayer man" is a big deal on this and other forums, I assure you that if you get together the 10 most prominent CTs in the media, and the 10 most prominent CTs who speak at conferences, "prayer man" will barely come up. The talk will be about John Newman's new discovery or an upcoming mock trial or Gary Aguilar's rebuttal to Lucien Haag's article in some obscure forensic publication. It's pretty much a closed loop. And there's a reason for this...
People like me. This forum was founded by John Simkin, who went out of his way to invite some of the most prominent writers and personalities in JFK land to the forum. He allowed others to join, if they behaved themselves. But many didn't. Most prominent people have prominent egos and this leads to their reluctance to engage on a level playing field. Similarly, newbie know-nothings are all too anxious to confront or insult someone more prominent than themselves so they can make their bones and brag about how they "owned" so and so. I, myself, have some remorse over confronting Mark Lane over something. I suspect he left the forum as a result. But I don't feel too bad about it. If it wasn't me it would have been someone else.

Wed 31 Aug 2022, 12:01 am

Pat Speer may very well be the embodiment of anti research.

Mediocrity personified. And a patronizing cunt to boot. Along with that joker Palamara, who increasingly resembles an overfed constipated gopher, trying desperately to squeeze one out, his performance viz Prayerman, will forever guarantee him a shit smeared plinth in the halls of infamy. It may very well eclipse Vinnys* brief conversion to lone nutism ( Serious question: How the FUCK did someone like Vince Palamara become such a respected researcher? He has all the insight and gravitas of a giggling college freshman, wrecked on cheap cider and desperate to get laid. And as for his writing??? He makes that lugubrious twat Benjamin " House of Underage Holes " Cole, or even, dare I say, Fezzo the Fez himself seem almost Tolstoyian in comparison)

Pat fucking Speers mere presence stifles whatever meagre vestige of " debate" managed to come bubbling up to the scum coated surface of the River La Pisse, which trickles it's way, gurgling and foaming as it goes, through the very heart of the village square of La Tete de 13 Pouces..

His negativity, and his absolute mediocrity seems to be contagious. Also , he seems to be infected with chronic Liftonitis.

Overweening, overbearing pomposity, and the wrongheaded notion that there's some sort of correlation between the length of time spent researching and the quality of the research produced

Like Lifton , M Speer can't see beyond his own treasured perceptions. For him the case begins and ends with that insufferable website of his. Just like for Lifton, the voyeurs voyeur, a pioneer of consumer friendly necrophilia, the case begins and ends with his anti masterpiece, JFK reimagined for the video nasty generation; Best fucking Evidence...A testament to the absolute power of self delusion

How utterly deluded must M Speer be? To waste fuck knows how much time on his website? Earnestly typing away. And never once resisting the urge to quote himself.

I don't know if anyone remembers his arguments with Dr Mantik and the Fetzer gang? Over the medical evidence in general, and more specifically the Harper Fragment.

I felt like I was witnessing some sort of duel in Hell- Hitler versus Pol Pot, with Beelzebub and ole Dickie Hooke acting as seconds, Dickie glowering through the volcanic spurts of fiery sulphur, trying to remember if Beelzebub was a Jewish demon, don't worry Dickie , he was the Phoenician(? Or maybe the Mesopotamian or even the Sumerian) Lord of the Flies..

You end up wanting both sides to lose..

As for Pats anecdotes? He reminds me of Tommy Graves at his most brain crushingly tedious..

M Speer should just stick to what he's good at. Acting as DVPs de facto fluffer/ straight man.

Anti research pretty much sums up his contributions. If there's a negative spin to be spun then M Speer is just the main to do the spinning..Turgid monotonous brain rotting bilge of the lowest order...

On and on...and on...Endlessly rehashing the same old shite. Sparing no effort when Lord Gordo decrees a mouldy maggot infested corpse be exhumed and given a debate friendly make over..

Let's spend another 100 pages discussing Ex General Walker, or Rose Cheramie, or God forbid, photo alteration, maybe the Poet Laureate in residence, Sean " Call me Shelley, but not CIA Shelley " Coleman will rustle his fellow adepts a couple of Wildean epigrams, or a pungent almost Dostoevsky like critique on the soullessness of post Cinquean debate, while Pete M and Ron Bulman can try to out banal each other, who can come up with the most fucking vapid post...

Over 1000 years ago, the Papacy had become the plaything of a handful of rich Roman patrician families, a period known as the Pornocracy,.

With wildly promiscuous teenage popes, all manner of debauchery, masterminded by the divine Theodora, wife, lover and mother of no less than 4 popes, matriarch of the all powerful Theopylatic family , who allegedly oversaw the Vatican's very prosperous in house brothel. At the very height of the madness a newly elected Pope decreed his successor be exhumed and put on trial.

He was. Quite literally. The decaying corpse dragged up from the catacombs, was dressed in the full papal regalia and placed on the Throne of St Peter.

This bizarre incident became infamous as the Cadaverous Synod.

Which is what the 18 inch head forum is rapidly becoming..

With Ex Commissioner M Speer, newly resplendent in the scarlet robes of the Camerlengo..

Prayerman imho is the ultimate litmus test. Separating the milquetoast simpletons, rabid conspiracy theorists and all shades in between- from enablers , or smug armchair messiahs , like ex Comrades Burnham and Drago, who Knew The Truth, to simple run of the mill knob ends , from the realists. Researchers who respect the subject and the source material. Who harbour no preconceived beliefs or pet theories.

Those who have both the courage and the integrity to follow the facts wherever they lead.

Is Prayerman a magical panacea? Is it a magic wand we see, glinting in the sunshine?

Of course not. But proving Oswald's innocence, once and for all, beyond any doubt, will most certainly constitute a MASSIVE step forward.

Perhaps THE most important step taken in the past 60 years.

Of course, let's not delude ourselves, or downplay the sheer scale of the task ahead, and the enormity of the obstacles. Least of all apathy.

The way I see it there's only 2 choices. 1 Make the effort. I hope I don't sound overtly cloying, or sentimental , utilising the ultimately meaningless feel good phraseology, so beloved by politicians and other types of charlatans, but dare to dream, dare to ask " Why not?" Rather than merely shrugging your shoulders, scratching your balls before plunging back into serious debate, with utter fucking bellends like DR Neiderhut

There's the ROKC way and then there's the wrong way. The stultifyingly banal Pat Speer school of faux debate. Nothing can ever be done so let's just waste more fucking precious time gabbing on about chapter 16c of my fucking website..

Modestly titled Pat Speer. com

Utter throbber

In the words of the once and future Lee Farley, reading through a couple of threads makes me want to scoop my own brains out with a dessert spoon...

P.S *. Channeling my inner Larrytrotter, for clarification, I mean Vinny Palamara, not our own redoubtable irreplacable Vinny. ROKCs very own Samuel Pepys. Braving the stench and the degradation , boldly travelling to the outermost fringes of conspiracyville, he returns with examples of the mindless dross that passes for research..

Fri 02 Sep 2022, 1:06 am

Vinny wrote:Pat never gives up.

Many of the most prominent members of the research community are of a similar mindset. Avoid the internet at all costs. I have met and dined with and even spent the night at the house of some of the big names in CT land, and they will call me up to ask me a question about something that I discuss in detail on my website. And what I say will come as a surprise. They know I know something about whatever it is they are calling me about, but have never taken the time to read my website or watch my videos.

There's a bubble in CT land much as there's a bubble in this country. While "prayer man" is a big deal on this and other forums, I assure you that if you get together the 10 most prominent CTs in the media, and the 10 most prominent CTs who speak at conferences, "prayer man" will barely come up. The talk will be about John Newman's new discovery or an upcoming mock trial or Gary Aguilar's rebuttal to Lucien Haag's article in some obscure forensic publication. It's pretty much a closed loop. And there's a reason for this...
People like me. This forum was founded by John Simkin, who went out of his way to invite some of the most prominent writers and personalities in JFK land to the forum. He allowed others to join, if they behaved themselves. But many didn't. Most prominent people have prominent egos and this leads to their reluctance to engage on a level playing field. Similarly, newbie know-nothings are all too anxious to confront or insult someone more prominent than themselves so they can make their bones and brag about how they "owned" so and so. I, myself, have some remorse over confronting Mark Lane over something. I suspect he left the forum as a result. But I don't feel too bad about it. If it wasn't me it would have been someone else.

Patspeak decoded

"Many of the most prominent members of the research community" = the Conspiratocracy and anyone else who is not ROKC.

"avoid the internet at all costs." = We are a closed club with powerful allies. We dont need to expose our shortcomings to scrutiny.

"I have met and dined with" = it was all part of the cost of the conference ticket. I was so excited when Mr Groden dribbled on my sausage whiile telling me about the second Mrs Reid, i almost peed myself. I now have that sausage preserved so this his DNA can be used to bring him back when future generations need him...

"and even spent the night in the home of some of the big names in CT land"= they should learn to lock up properly before slithering off to Bohemian Grove.

"and they will call me up to ask me a question about something that I discuss in detail on my website." When Scam Indian Call Centers ring, I like to pretend they are my heroes in CT Land in need of my counsel."

"And what I say will come as a surprise." = The scammers for some reason, are a bit bemused when I call them Oliver or Alex and explain the importance of Lifton 16:4 from my online book. Especially the part about Sarah Stanton getting a double mastectomy on Nov 21 from Doctor Larson of the Doyle Clinic.

"They know I know something about whatever it is" = They know I know that they know I know something. About whatever it is, who knows?

"they are calling me but have never taken the time to read my website or watch my videos." = Because I know, they know, that I know sweet fuck all. And reading my website or watching my videos won't help them. Why would it? They are scam Indian Call Center operators, playing along on the off-chance I'll give them access to my Dollamite account with the Second National Bank of Upper Skokie Valley Heights. And that is the beauty of this whole thing. If we all know that we all know sweet fuck all, we have to be mutually supportive or the whole scheme collapses. Never trust anyone who baulks at holding hands and singing Kumbaya with you around a campfire.

"There's a bubble in CT land much as there's a bubble in this country." = Too many players and too many theories are over-valued. If we all just stuck to simple body-snatching, things might not be set to collapse.

"While "prayer man" is a big deal on this and other forums, I assure you that if you get together the 10 most prominent CTs in the media, and the 10 most prominent CTs who speak at conferences, "prayer man" will barely come up." = I fucking love --- I mean I REALLY fucking love my appeals to authority. I also love forgetting that none of those cunts want anything minutely close to resembling a solution. They have all stuck their swords in the ground around the stinking corpses of theories buried in the 70s, 80s and 90s when the media were still giving them all plenty of space and coverage. Media will go to their existing files for stories at anniversaries, and ring for a quote from one of the usual suspects. Occassionally, a newly released document will get some time in the clean air of a news cycle - but only if it at least vaguely supports one of the existing theories they can pull a file on. So fuck Prayer Man. I know that the PM advocates know that I know that PM is most likely Oswald. So fuck them too. I support their eradication by any means.

"The talk will be about John Newman's new discovery or an upcoming mock trial or Gary Aguilar's rebuttal to Lucien Haag's article in some obscure forensic publication. It's pretty much a closed loop. And there's a reason for this..." = It is important to be able to talk the talk at these dick swingers conventions. That's if you want to stay in the loop.

People like me. This [Thirteen Inch Head] forum was founded by John Simkin, who went out of his way to invite some of the most prominent writers and personalities in JFK land to the forum.= Simkin wanted it to be a place where such hucksters could sell their wares while simultaneously drawing in the clicks. As such, these writers were protected from hard questions, let alone anything appproaching criticism. That made it a very special place in my eyes because I was one of the guardians of its "speciallness". Like Armstrong can"t refuse a doppleganger over a misidentifcation, so Simkin couldn't resist any old published theory over actual strong contrary evidence OR lack of any actual evidence at all.

He allowed others to join, if they behaved themselves. = Ooops. I think I just admitted that (conspiratocracy) authors could do and say wharever the fuck they liked. It was truly a wonderful model, diminished only by the likes of that potty-mouthed Parker.

"Most prominent people have prominent egos and this leads to their reluctance to engage on a level playing field. Similarly, newbie know-nothings are all too anxious to confront or insult someone more prominent than themselves so they can make their bones and brag about how they "owned" so and so. I, myself, have some remorse over confronting Mark Lane over something. I suspect he left the forum as a result. But I don't feel too bad about it. If it wasn't me it would have been someone else." = Ultimately, I'm just a bore and I'll always end up waffling like an old lady between bingo games if you let me. I wouldn't need to though, if you would just go and read my website and watch my videos.

Fri 02 Sep 2022, 1:52 pm

The bottom line is the CT establishment resents being outflanked, outdone, and essentially made fools of for ever believing the portions of the official story that they not only believed, but spent years analyzing and trying to disprove when it was a false narrative to begin with, namely the second floor encounter fabrication. On top of that, they don't like the people who brought forward the message that Oswald was out watching the p. parade. The message needs to come from within their kind, not from rude outsiders, before they will celebrate new discovery. Yet rude outsiders were exactly what was required for this truth to ever see the light of day.

The irony is the women on the stairs prove that Oswald was not on the 6th. So where was he? There is evidence, very good evidence of where he actually was at the time of the shooting. This leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of those who would rather remain inside respective comfort zones eating marvelous meals together. Their fates are sealed, as are those of ours, the rude outsiders who actually figured this thing out.

Wed 14 Sep 2022, 2:14 pm

More drivel from him.

I remember reading about a doomsday cult in the fifties that kept changing the date of the end of the world as each date came to pass and the world didn't end.
Now I've seen a cult develop around a blurry photograph, where people insisted the photograph showed a particular person, and then re-interpreted and re-arranged a large volume of evidence to support that it was that person... Only to come face to face with the possibility it wasn't that person... whereby some of the followers took to insisting their belief that person was in that picture had nothing to do with the picture, and rested entirely on the "evidence" that had been re-interpreted and re-arranged to support the ID of the blurry figure in the picture.
To make an analogy... A man thinks he sees Jesus in a picture taken at Disneyland. He shows this picture to dozens of people, a number of whom say "Holy Smokes! That is Jesus at Disneyland!" The man then moves away. Those left behind proceed to create a whole narrative revolving around Jesus going to Disneyland. Over time, however, some start to have doubts that really is Jesus in the picture that started it all. But some of the followers say "Never mind, I never believed that was Jesus in the picture to begin with...it was the narrative constructed by those who believed that led me to believe."

Yikes...If I am understanding this correctly...some of those believing that Oswald was Prayer Man are now saying they don't necessarily believe that Oswald was Prayer Man, and they mostly believe he was outside on the front steps at the time of the shooting--whether he was photographed there or not, whether he was observed there or not, whether he said he was there or not.
This whole "believing" thing is weird to me...

Wed 14 Sep 2022, 11:56 pm

The issue is that he is misunderstanding too much, don't worry this will be rectified pretty soon.
Then he should understand.

Thu 15 Sep 2022, 12:15 am

barto wrote:The issue is that he is misunderstanding too much, don't worry this will be rectified pretty soon.
Then he should understand.

Holy shit Barto. He is not misunderstanding anything. He is laying out a field of straw, putting words in our mouths and all-in-all being an absolute cunt. So nothing new really.

Thu 15 Sep 2022, 12:49 am

Vinny wrote:More drivel from him.

I remember reading about a doomsday cult in the fifties that kept changing the date of the end of the world as each date came to pass and the world didn't end.
Now I've seen a cult develop around a blurry photograph, where people insisted the photograph showed a particular person, and then re-interpreted and re-arranged a large volume of evidence to support that it was that person... Only to come face to face with the possibility it wasn't that person... whereby some of the followers took to insisting their belief that person was in that picture had nothing to do with the picture, and rested entirely on the "evidence" that had been re-interpreted and re-arranged to support the ID of the blurry figure in the picture.
To make an analogy... A man thinks he sees Jesus in a picture taken at Disneyland. He shows this picture to dozens of people, a number of whom say "Holy Smokes! That is Jesus at Disneyland!" The man then moves away. Those left behind proceed to create a whole narrative revolving around Jesus going to Disneyland. Over time, however, some start to have doubts that really is Jesus in the picture that started it all. But some of the followers say "Never mind, I never believed that was Jesus in the picture to begin with...it was the narrative constructed by those who believed that led me to believe."

Yikes...If I am understanding this correctly...some of those believing that Oswald was Prayer Man are now saying they don't necessarily believe that Oswald was Prayer Man, and they mostly believe he was outside on the front steps at the time of the shooting--whether he was photographed there or not, whether he was observed there or not, whether he said he was there or not.
This whole "believing" thing is weird to me...

Apocryphal stories are fun, aren't they?

I like this one myself. I recall reading about a society that had no reason to doubt that the earth was a pimple on the arse of a giant boar, Biggus Speerious Boaratticus.

Nearly every day, Biggus Speerious Boaratticus would launch a giant fart. The Pimple People took the sulphurous plumes as a good omen because on the odd day when no fart was forthcoming, Biggus Speerious Boaratticus's belly would rumble, causing his rump to tremble and of course, on such days, the quivering fatty pink flesh would send a few Pimple People plumetting off the pimple and into the void.

Then one day another tribe decided to explore the world and use science, observation and testing to determine the facts about what they saw.

They were apparently appalled when the came across the Pimple People. Not even in the Highlands of New Guinea or in far north Queensland had they encountered such blissful ignorance.

"Fuck 'em" said the New Tribe in a collective sigh of resignation. They're a bunch of cunts blowing smoke at each other and calling it a blessing from a Giant fucking Boar.

And so the New Tribe continued on it's path of discovery. Months later they heard that the Pimple People eventually ran out of fleas to eat and ate the boar. The End.

Fri 16 Sep 2022, 4:17 am

greg_parker wrote:

barto wrote:The issue is that he is misunderstanding too much, don't worry this will be rectified pretty soon.
Then he should understand.

Holy shit Barto. He is not misunderstanding anything. He is laying out a field of straw, putting words in our mouths and all-in-all being an absolute cunt. So nothing new really.

(As much as you guys hate me...)

I agree with Greg.

I hope Bart responds to what is going on in the "PrayerPerson???" thread over at the Education Forum. There's a guy by the name of James Hackerott who claims that he studied the Darnell film at the 6FM and says that it shows PM wearing what looks like a woman's blouse. (See page 4 to read what Hackerott said.)

And there's a new frame of Darnell (posted earlier in that thread) apparently going around the internet showing the same. Of course it's a fake, but Hackerott says it looks like what he remembers.

If what Hackerott says is true, I believe that the 6FM's copy of Darnell has been altered because the PM topic was too hot.

My apologies if you guys are already aware of this.

Fri 16 Sep 2022, 4:30 am

Speaking of Speer, he told everyone there at the Ed. Forum that some of Bart's guys (or Greg's guys, whatever) had checked out a copy of Darnell that was for sell. He said that some of them were pleased with what they saw and wanted the group to buy it, but others said no because they were not convinced. Also, the price being asked for the film was way too high.

I would appreciate it if somebody would give me the facts on this. I don't trust anyone who thinks that people pointing to the backs of their heads are really pointing to the tops of their heads.

I can be reached at slarsen 1955 @ gmail . com

(I filled that with spaces so that a bot wouldn't pick it up.)

Fri 16 Sep 2022, 6:16 am

Quite a few posters on the Education Forum still seem to be missing the key points about Prayer Man.

There are now two sources stemming from the first interrogation session that indicate Lee Oswald claimed to be at the TSBD entrance as the motorcade passed. Given that no-one as yet has identified another figure that could be Oswald from extant photographs and films, it is surely reasonable to conclude that if PM wasn’t Oswald then he lied in custody – and lied about the most critical of issues.

It is obvious why LNs would take that position.

But then where does that leave those believe he was innocent (at least of shooting at Kennedy) and was actually elsewhere on the lower floors? Why would he lie about where he was at the time of the assassination by placing himself – of all possible locations – on the front steps? There doesn’t seem to be a logical explanation.

I contend that Oswald essentially told the truth about the events that day, although of course we’ll never know the full story. (Deeper questioning of his background may have elicited a refusal to answer.) The central concern is the manipulation and distortion of his words by the FBI, DPD and the Secret Service who sought to destroy his alibi and create a false narrative.

Nine years after the lengthy thread on the Education Forum critics of PM being Oswald still haven’t named a credible alternative. Instead, they cite a “plunging neckline” in an indistinct film frame ostensibly to disprove Oswald could be PM – while falsely claiming their opponents rely on other indistinct imagery to prove the opposite.

The “plunging neckline” argument is based on assuming a level of reliable detail that is absent everywhere else in the relevant image. It looks like a photographic artifact. We are possibly at the limit of what can be achieved by analysing the frames currently available and messing around with contrast, brightness, etc. may ultimately produce distorted images.

Fri 16 Sep 2022, 11:57 am

sandylarsen wrote:

greg_parker wrote:

barto wrote:The issue is that he is misunderstanding too much, don't worry this will be rectified pretty soon.
Then he should understand.

Holy shit Barto. He is not misunderstanding anything. He is laying out a field of straw, putting words in our mouths and all-in-all being an absolute cunt. So nothing new really.

(As much as you guys hate me...)

I agree with Greg.

I hope Bart responds to what is going on in the "PrayerPerson???" thread over at the Education Forum. There's a guy by the name of James Hackerott who claims that he studied the Darnell film at the 6FM and says that it shows PM wearing what looks like a woman's blouse. (See page 4 to read what Hackerott said.)

And there's a new frame of Darnell (posted earlier in that thread) apparently going around the internet showing the same. Of course it's a fake, but Hackerott says it looks like what he remembers.

If what Hackerott says is true, I believe that the 6FM's copy of Darnell has been altered because the PM topic was too hot.

My apologies if you guys are already aware of this.

Firstly, at least you have the courage to come here. More than your comrades will do.

People are treated here according to the perception of motive for being here.

Bart has responded. Not sure which thread. One of the PM threads. He has also clarified what went down with the guy trying to sell a doctored film. That's a clue for you "doctored".

The long and the short of if it that life is too short and there is too much else to do to waste time on the idiocies being spouted over there, so though he has responded, it is not "in depth". Bart is not going to be distracted that easily.

Fri 16 Sep 2022, 12:37 pm

Redfern wrote:Quite a few posters on the Education Forum still seem to be missing the key points about Prayer Man.

There are now two sources stemming from the first interrogation session that indicate Lee Oswald claimed to be at the TSBD entrance as the motorcade passed. Given that no-one as yet has identified another figure that could be Oswald from extant photographs and films, it is surely reasonable to conclude that if PM wasn’t Oswald then he lied in custody – and lied about the most critical of issues.

It is obvious why LNs would take that position.

But then where does that leave those believe he was innocent (at least of shooting at Kennedy) and was actually elsewhere on the lower floors? Why would he lie about where he was at the time of the assassination by placing himself – of all possible locations – on the front steps? There doesn’t seem to be a logical explanation.

I contend that Oswald essentially told the truth about the events that day, although of course we’ll never know the full story. (Deeper questioning of his background may have elicited a refusal to answer.) The central concern is the manipulation and distortion of his words by the FBI, DPD and the Secret Service who sought to destroy his alibi and create a false narrative.

Nine years after the lengthy thread on the Education Forum critics of PM being Oswald still haven’t named a credible alternative. Instead, they cite a “plunging neckline” in an indistinct film frame ostensibly to disprove Oswald could be PM – while falsely claiming their opponents rely on other indistinct imagery to prove the opposite.

The “plunging neckline” argument is based on assuming a level of reliable detail that is absent everywhere else in the relevant image. It looks like a photographic artifact. We are possibly at the limit of what can be achieved by analysing the frames currently available and messing around with contrast, brightness, etc. may ultimately produce distorted images.

Agree Redfern, And what trumps all of this is Harold Norman and Junior Jarman's testimony re their re-entering the building through the rear dock door and walking "through" the first floor area past the Domino room to the rear freight elevators at approximately 12:25pm time stamped by the police radio message those two had overheard out front just prior to making their way up to the 5th floor. The interrogation reports clearly point to Oswald having related this information to his accusers - it's there in the record. He tells them he had seen those two at around that time.....just before he headed out.

This seals the deal in my opinion - this along with Arnold, stating - "caught just a glimpse of Oswald on the first floor" at around 12:15pm and then the recently discovered Hosty Notes - which place him on the first and then out front -add to that the Darnell frame - and Boom there's the alibi. So where was Jack Dougherty just for shits and giggles....

Fri 16 Sep 2022, 4:05 pm

greg_parker wrote:
Bart has responded. Not sure which thread. One of the PM threads. He has also clarified what went down with the guy trying to sell a doctored film. That's a clue for you "doctored".

I wish I could find Bart's response. I thought you meant that Bart posted it at Ed. Forum, but I couldn't find it there. In fact, I discovered that Bart has apparently been banned! Which was a rude surprise for me. I never noticed him making trouble over there. It appears he was banned not long after he posted Hosty's P. Parade note. A lot of members were delighted by that find, with even Jim DiEugenio giving Bart and Malcolm Blunt kudos. And then... banned. I thought that Jim D. might have some influence over a decision like that, but maybe not. (Jim seemed to be supportive of Pray Man, but wasn't vocal about it because he tries to steer clear of the highly contentious stuff.)

Well anyway, thanks for replying to my post. If you happen to see where Bart posted his response, I'd appreciate a link. After not finding it on the Ed. Forum, I looked for it here but couldn't find it.

Fri 16 Sep 2022, 7:02 pm

sandylarsen wrote:I wish I could find Bart's response.

I raised the subject of Pat's comment a few months ago on the following thread:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t587p700-prayer-man#38302

Bart's somewhat cryptic reply further down that page is probably the one you're looking for. He says that he saw the film and that its quality wasn't great.

By the way, congratulations for turning up here! I hope you'll be able to take part in any H&L-related discussions. Apologies if my comments over the years have been unduly harsh - we all get carried away sometimes. It's nothing personal!

Sat 17 Sep 2022, 12:27 am

JeremyBojczuk wrote:

sandylarsen wrote:I wish I could find Bart's response.

I raised the subject of Pat's comment a few months ago on the following thread:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t587p700-prayer-man#38302

Bart's somewhat cryptic reply further down that page is probably the one you're looking for. He says that he saw the film and that its quality wasn't great.

By the way, congratulations for turning up here! I hope you'll be able to take part in any H&L-related discussions. Apologies if my comments over the years have been unduly harsh - we all get carried away sometimes. It's nothing personal!

Bottom line, Jeremy is that Speer is full of shit on this and other matters. He is an absolute boofhead.

(that's a tough one to pronounce unless you know it already, so here is the correct pronunciation.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/boofhead )

The original Boofhead

Proof that Pat Speer has no interest in the facts - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmgrsko0XCry5NWwDkrHgyrtyNr6HxZ_7Uv2EH8dlkdxZeh6Oes3HmmkCqBQubQUxrN9I&usqp=CAU

Proof that Pat Speer has no interest in the facts - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmgrsko0XCry5NWwDkrHgyrtyNr6HxZ_7Uv2EH8dlkdxZeh6Oes3HmmkCqBQubQUxrN9I&usqp=CAU

Sat 17 Sep 2022, 5:22 am

DiEugenio has been a major disappointment to me, Sandy. Before the Stone docs were released, I tried to get him to add something about that shadowy figure on the steps and NBC Universal's role in hiding the Darnell film. Who knows better than Stone of the media's duplicity. It would have fit beautifully right after Whoppi's conclusion that Oswald was not on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.

I tried again before Stone went on with Rogan to be interviewed before Rogan's large audience. No response at either time. Instead Rogan asked Stone, as I thought he would, well, if Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor where was he?

Stone said he was in the 2nd floor lunch room(!) eating his lunch. Major blunder and missed opportunity.

Sat 17 Sep 2022, 10:27 am

Roger Odisio wrote:DiEugenio has been a major disappointment to me, Sandy. Before the Stone docs were released, I tried to get him to add something about that shadowy figure on the steps and NBC Universal's role in hiding the Darnell film. Who knows better than Stone of the media's duplicity. It would have fit beautifully right after Whoppi's conclusion that Oswald was not on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.

I tried again before Stone went on with Rogan to be interviewed before Rogan's large audience. No response at either time. Instead Rogan asked Stone, as I thought he would, well, if Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor where was he?

Stone said he was in the 2nd floor lunch room(!) eating his lunch. Major blunder and missed opportunity.

Just surprised he didn't say on the 2nd floor eating lunch with Truly since that was one of the rumors on record via the FBI.

We cannot rely on these guys. They are tied to the Stone movie and related theories from the 80s and 90s and anything released since which might support them.

Unless we can find someone OUTSIDE this "community" who has gravitas and political and/or media influence to get behind this in a meaningful way, we have only ourselves to rely on on to get this done.

A lot of the opposition - including Doyle, Speer, Gilbride and others does NOT spring from the evidence - it springs from petty revenge or protection of cheished beliefs and theories, because that is how fragile their egos are.

When it comes to PM, they are a bunch of Boofheads and galahs.

Proof that Pat Speer has no interest in the facts