"Prayer Man" on the Education Forum

[ianlloyd]

First topic message reminder :

As I am not a member of the EF, I cannot post there but there is an interesting discussion going on there at the moment regarding a figure in the TSBD doorway generally referred to as "Prayer Man" due to the apparent position of his hands, seemingly clasped in front of his chest as if in prayer.
 
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354
 
I recall this person being discussed somewhere many years ago and was referred to as "Prayer Man" pretty much from the outset but I cannot recall where it originated, maybe on Lancer?
 
Anyway, the reason for this post is that, upon looking closely at the various photographs and movie clips presented as part of the discussion, it struck me that his hands don't seem to move from the "prayer" position for what seems to be quite some time. Was he holding something, I wonder? If so, it seems an odd way to hold whatever it was.

[StanDane]

Just done as you suggested, Stan.

Thanks Ray! I sure do hope Sean is well and reemerges back on the scene again soon.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Just done as you suggested, Stan.

Thanks Ray! I sure do hope Sean is well and reemerges back on the scene again soon.

I see there has been the suggestion put forward that all "redundant" topics be archived and put on a DVD to be given away to the 1st 100 donors - after which they would be wiped. 

Wonder who gets to say what is redundant? And if a topic is redundant - and therefore useless - what good is it to anyone on a DVD?

I can just see it now... Stan: "Hello, Terlin? Terlin, ya gotta come over and check out my DVD of redundant Education Forum topics! Lemme see... we got 'Was the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress Really the Point Man Hiding in a Fake Tree?' 'The Fez Explains Liftonite Theory in Six Different Colors and Fonts' and my personal favorite, 'How I Modeled My Theory on 'The Many Faces of Dobie Gillis!'' Terlin? Terlin, you still there, Terlin?"

[StanDane]

I see there has been the suggestion put forward that all "redundant" topics be archived and put on a DVD to be given away to the 1st 100 donors - after which they would be wiped. 

Wonder who gets to say what is redundant? And if a topic is redundant - and therefore useless - what good is it to anyone on a DVD?

I can just see it now... Stan: "Hello, Terlin? Terlin, ya gotta come over and check out my DVD of redundant Education Forum topics! Lemme see... we got 'Was the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress Really the Point Man Hiding in a Fake Tree?' 'The Fez Explains Liftonite Theory in Six Different Colors and Fonts' and my personal favorite, 'How I Modeled My Theory on 'The Many Faces of Dobie Gillis!'' Terlin? Terlin, you still there, Terlin?"

ROTFL! 

The reason Terry is not responding is that he's hightailing it over to my place so we can have a few cold ones and watch the show!

[Hasan Yusuf]

Some good news. Jim has agreed that we put up a link to the "Prayer man" discussions at the CTKA home page. I will be writing a brief introduction to it. I should have that up within the next few days.

[GuestGuest]

I see there has been the suggestion put forward that all "redundant" topics be archived and put on a DVD to be given away to the 1st 100 donors - after which they would be wiped. 

Wonder who gets to say what is redundant? And if a topic is redundant - and therefore useless - what good is it to anyone on a DVD?

I can just see it now... Stan: "Hello, Terlin? Terlin, ya gotta come over and check out my DVD of redundant Education Forum topics! Lemme see... we got 'Was the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress Really the Point Man Hiding in a Fake Tree?' 'The Fez Explains Liftonite Theory in Six Different Colors and Fonts' and my personal favorite, 'How I Modeled My Theory on 'The Many Faces of Dobie Gillis!'' Terlin? Terlin, you still there, Terlin?"

ROTFL! 

The reason Terry is not responding is that he's hightailing it over to my place so we can have a few cold ones and watch the show!

my goodness, we have come so far, so fast....?


I am waiting for answers that may never come, always the bridesmaid, but never the bride.
The thing that sticks in one's craw is apparently being bested by a committee of the clueless.

[StanDane]

Some good news. Jim has agreed that we put up a link to the "Prayer man" discussions at the CTKA home page. I will be writing a brief introduction to it. I should have that up within the next few days.

"Where was Oswald during the shooting?"
By Gokay Hasan Yusuf

http://www.ctka.net/2014/Prayer%20man.html

[TerryWMartin]

Thanks, Stan!

[Colin_Crow]

This is the movie we need the enhanced frames for PM identification. They claimed to be able to see into shadows.

http://www.imagetrendsinc.com/news/article_KXAN_112311_Witness%20to%20JFK%20death%20remembers_Dustin%20Blanchard.pdf

[TerryWMartin]

This is the movie we need the enhanced frames for PM identification. They claimed to be able to see into shadows.

http://www.imagetrendsinc.com/news/article_KXAN_112311_Witness%20to%20JFK%20death%20remembers_Dustin%20Blanchard.pdf

Nice, Colin. The link did not work until I removed the "[/url]" from the web address.

Interesting stuff. Seems these fellows found what happened to the "first shot" - it hit a traffic light - and they could pull up the shadows well enough to see there was no shooter in the trees on the grassy knoll.

I guess they proved everyone was wrong after all these years. The three shots actually went like this:

first shot - traffic light
second shot - Tague
third shot - JFK's throat, back, all Connally's wounds, hitting the windshield and ricocheting back into JFK's head for the killing headshot.

Can anyone get ahold of Arlen Specter please. We're going to need his help in revising the Magic Bullet thesis.

Or, in other words, what a crock!

I can hardly wait to see this on Nat Geo.

[Colin_Crow]

The point of this is if the scans are available the TSBD steps are visible. In a poor copy screenshot I can get a shape in the PM position by manipulating crudely with brightness and contrast. I think this is the best video to further investigate PM.

[TerryWMartin]

The point of this is if the scans are available the TSBD steps are visible. In a poor copy screenshot I can get a shape in the PM position by manipulating crudely with brightness and contrast. I think this is the best video to further investigate PM.

Yes, that is the point and a very good idea.

I can hardly wait to see it.

[StanDane]

I see that Jim Di is speaking at the AARC - Warren Commission Conference which starts tomorrow. I see also that Buell Wesley Frazier will be speaking on the topic "Oswald, Friend and Family Man" (this is under the heading "Still Living Witnesses Expose the Cover-up").
 
http://aarclibrary.org/conference-program/
 
If BWF indeed believes there was a "cover-up," I wish he would simply say who Prayer Man was. And confirm his position in the Darnell film. Enough dillydallying. Shit or get off the pot. He shouldn't have Gary Mack or any other "handlers" around to spook him. 

I would love for Jim Di to ask him point blank and then tell us about it.

[TerryWMartin]

I see that Jim Di is speaking at the AARC - Warren Commission Conference which starts tomorrow. I see also that Buell Wesley Frazier will be speaking on the topic "Oswald, Friend and Family Man" (this is under the heading "Still Living Witnesses Expose the Cover-up").
 
http://aarclibrary.org/conference-program/
 
If BWF indeed believes there was a "cover-up," I wish he would simply say who Prayer Man was. And confirm his position in the Darnell film. Enough dillydallying. Shit or get off the pot. He shouldn't have Gary Mack or any other "handlers" around to spook him. 

I would love for Jim Di to ask him point blank and then tell us about it.

What? And bring an end to this glorious madness?

Perhaps someone should see if Jim Di plans on doing just that.

[Goban_Saor]

Buell Wesley Frazier has as good as admitted that Prayer Man was Oswald, as Sean Murphy has explained in post 791, page 53, of the Prayer Man thread. And crucially, as evidenced in that post, BWF did not deny that Prayer Man was Oswald, which was the nub of the question put to him.

Since BWF is on record in a videoed interview saying he feels unable to state openly what he knows about the JFK assassination for fear of retaliation against his family, this is probably as far as he will ever go by way of disclosure in this regard. But that’s far enough for me.

[GuestGuest]

I see that Jim Di is speaking at the AARC - Warren Commission Conference which starts tomorrow. I see also that Buell Wesley Frazier will be speaking on the topic "Oswald, Friend and Family Man" (this is under the heading "Still Living Witnesses Expose the Cover-up").
 
http://aarclibrary.org/conference-program/
 
If BWF indeed believes there was a "cover-up," I wish he would simply say who Prayer Man was. And confirm his position in the Darnell film. Enough dillydallying. Shit or get off the pot. He shouldn't have Gary Mack or any other "handlers" around to spook him. 

I would love for Jim Di to ask him point blank and then tell us about it.

Frazier knows there was a "cover-up" but he is obviously shit scared to uncover it on his lonesome probably due to the fact that he was, perhaps, an unwilling participant in the cover up itself.
I sort of feel sorry for Frazier and then I don't. He can blow this thing wide open by himself. There aren't too many witnesses around that can do that.

[StanDane]

Frazier knows there was a "cover-up" but he is obviously shit scared to uncover it on his lonesome probably due to the fact that he was, perhaps, an unwilling participant in the cover up itself.
I sort of feel sorry for Frazier and then I don't. He can blow this thing wide open by himself. There aren't too many witnesses around that can do that.

I agree. Other than Ruth Paine, BWF is probably the most important witness still living.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Frazier was asked back in May about PM. At that point, he was still denying that the person that just about everyone else sees is him, was in fact him.

[Goban_Saor]

Frazier was asked back in May about PM. At that point, he was still denying that the person that just about everyone else sees is him, was in fact him.

Can you provide further details on this, Greg?

That would seem to be a shift in Frazier's position from that referred to in my post four posts above this one.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Frazier was asked back in May about PM. At that point, he was still denying that the person that just about everyone else sees is him, was in fact him.

Can you provide further details on this, Greg?

That would seem to be a shift in Frazier's position from that referred to in my post four posts above this one.

Goban,

you referenced a particular post by Sean Murphy at the Ed Forum thread.

In that post, Sean has copied a message from Gary Mack to a member of a third forum. In that message, it specifically states... "First, he [Frazier] wouldn’t confirm himself being on the top step because the image isn’t clear enough."


Given the above, I see conformity rather than a shift in position.

As for particulars, I would need to seek permission to go into those details. Not that there is much more to tell anyway apart from the name of the person who put the question to him. There was an expected second opportunity to talk to him - but if it did happen, I have not heard anything about it yet.

[Goban_Saor]

Sorry, Greg, there was some confusion on my part arising from my misreading your previous post when you said:
 
‘Frazier was asked back in May about PM. At that point, he was still denying that the person that just about everyone else sees is him, was in fact him.’
 
I misinterpreted the ‘him’ in the second sentence as denoting PM rather than Frazier.
 
Insofar as Frazier has again denied that the figure to the right of and behind PM is him (Frazier), you are correct is saying he is consistent in his denial.
 
However, I don’t believe this impinges on what I said earlier (page 56 upthread) in agreeing with Sean Murphy that Frazier’s prevarication effectively confirms that PM is Oswald.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Sorry, Greg, there was some confusion on my part arising from my misreading your previous post when you said:
 
‘Frazier was asked back in May about PM. At that point, he was still denying that the person that just about everyone else sees is him, was in fact him.’
 
I misinterpreted the ‘him’ in the second sentence as denoting PM rather than Frazier.
 
Insofar as Frazier has again denied that the figure to the right of and behind PM is him (Frazier), you are correct is saying he is consistent in his denial.
 
However, I don’t believe this impinges on what I said earlier (page 56 upthread) in agreeing with Sean Murphy that Frazier’s prevarication effectively confirms that PM is Oswald.

I agree - and apologies if I gave the wrong impression.

[Goban_Saor]

No apologies necessary, Greg. The mistake was all mine.
 
On a separate but related note, some people who dispute Oswald being PM argue that if he really were in the PM position he would have said so and he didn’t say so.
 
They deny that the ‘out with Bill Shelley in front’ detail in Captain Will Fritz’s notes of Oswald’s interrogation means what it seems to mean, ie Oswald claiming to be in front of the TSBD at the time of the assassination.
 
They say that the ‘out with Bill Shelley in front’ detail is uncontextualised and could be a reply to any number of questions.
 
During a discussion in the past here about this, I said that I had come across an official confirmation of Oswald’s claiming to having been ‘out with Bill Shelley in front’ at the time of the assassination. I couldn’t at the time remember where I had come across it and it was only in re-reading some of the Prayer Man thread recently that I found what seems like the official confirmation I was referring to.  Kudos again to Sean Murphy for his post # 681 on the PM thread dated 10^th September 2013 where he said:
 
Fritz, as we have already seen, let this very big moggy out of the bag during his WC testimony:
 
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement...
 
We know now that Lee was telling the truth...

[Albert Rossi]

Hi all.  I was at the AARC.  I figured I might as well try it again, so I approached Buell with the
Robin Unger enhancement of the Darnell frame on my laptop desktop, and asked him

1.  if that was him
2.  who the other figure was.

He admitted 1. was him.
He said 2. was not clear enough for certain identification, but it probably wasn't Lovelady
because by that time he had taken off with Shelley for the RR yard.

I didn't press him.

BTW the reason I had this at my disposal was I helped Jim D prepare his slideshow, and
he mentioned PrayerMan.  We had two slides from Darnell and Wiegman.

[StanDane]

Hi all.  I was at the AARC.  I figured I might as well try it again, so I approached Buell with the
Robin Unger enhancement of the Darnell frame on my laptop desktop, and asked him

1.  if that was him
2.  who the other figure was.

He admitted 1. was him.
He said 2. was not clear enough for certain identification, but it probably wasn't Lovelady
because by that time he had taken off with Shelley for the RR yard.

I didn't press him.

BTW the reason I had this at my disposal was I helped Jim D prepare his slideshow, and
he mentioned PrayerMan.  We had two slides from Darnell and Wiegman.

Hey Albert, nice to see you!

This is a huge admission! Finally, confirmation. It would have been cool if he would have said who PM was, but him saying it "probably" wasn't Lovelady is telling too. Progress.

Well done!

[Albert Rossi]

Yes, it was a bit funny because I first asked him if he could identify
Prayer Man, and while he was mulling it over, I said to him, pointing
to his image, "By the way, Mr. Frazier, is that you?"  To that he
responded, "very probably ... look at the hairline."  So yes, he seemed
to be in a more forthcoming mood at that point.

When he was answering questions after his talk (he repeatedly got choked
up as if withholding tears as he spoke of the events of that day), Jim
D had to leave the hall and asked me to ask him about where the polygraph
results went.  When i did, he responded that others have asked him the same
question and that he really didn't know.

[Sponsored content]