Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Shirley Temple is Prayer Man According to Duncan McRae
Today at 4:12 am by steely dan

» The Eighth Naval District
Yesterday at 11:33 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt2
Yesterday at 8:08 pm by barto

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt1
Yesterday at 11:58 am by barto

» JFK Assassination
Yesterday at 7:15 am by jack ferguson

» Lifton on his "new evidence"
Yesterday at 4:47 am by steely dan

» friends student exchange programs
Wed 07 Dec 2016, 12:01 pm by greg parker

» Richard Bernarbei
Tue 06 Dec 2016, 11:29 pm by barto

» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Tue 06 Dec 2016, 11:23 am by Paul Francisco Paso

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



Prayer Man Poll

Page 4 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Who is Prayer Man?

2% 2% 
[ 1 ]
79% 79% 
[ 33 ]
2% 2% 
[ 1 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
10% 10% 
[ 4 ]
7% 7% 
[ 3 ]
 
Total Votes : 42

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Guest on Wed 15 Oct 2014, 7:52 pm

Paul,
        Here is my conundrum I attempt to never speculate, hence why I do not support conclusive guilt or innocence for Oswald. Since I am not a photographic expert I do not value my judgement in this specific matter. I suppose the next most possible in my view would be a Houston Street employee. I do not contend either of these is correct, and neither does it preclude Oswald being there. I just require substantial evidence to claim certainty.   
          
Greg,
          In my view if we are to disprove the major suppression and alterations it requires that we be open to all possibilities the evidence offers. I will take the long shot, Obsessive Inquiry in the fifth.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by greg parker on Wed 15 Oct 2014, 7:55 pm

In my view if we are to disprove the major suppression and alterations it requires that we be open to all possibilities the evidence offers. I will take the long shot, Obsessive Inquiry in the fifth.
Thanks Carmine. I'll keep a close eye on the betting.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Terry W. Martin on Wed 15 Oct 2014, 11:16 pm

greg parker wrote:You guys in the US don't know how to live. Victorians get a freakin' public holiday for this race.

Yeah, rub our faces in it. We don't get any holidays due to races.

Much to Nascar's chagrin.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Thu 16 Oct 2014, 12:36 am

greg parker wrote:Okay. I think we've got the Cup sorted out. You guys in the US don't know how to live. Victorians get a freakin' public holiday for this race.

Yep, we sure do. And I must say, I have no complaints about it.  Very Happy

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1784
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Paul Francisco Paso on Thu 16 Oct 2014, 7:12 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
        Here is my conundrum I attempt to never speculate, hence why I do not support conclusive guilt or innocence for Oswald. Since I am not a photographic expert I do not value my judgement in this specific matter. I suppose the next most possible in my view would be a Houston Street employee. I do not contend either of these is correct, and neither does it preclude Oswald being there. I just require substantial evidence to claim certainty.   
          
Greg,
          In my view if we are to disprove the major suppression and alterations it requires that we be open to all possibilities the evidence offers. I will take the long shot, Obsessive Inquiry in the fifth.
Thanks, Carmine. I am afraid there is even less substantial evidence for Houston Street Employee or Stranger In The Crowd so I really don't understand your selections. But I do understand you don't like to gamble (or speculate. Same thing I guess).
The form (for me) suggests it is Oswald in a canter but there is no such thing as a safe bet. Not in this race anyways. If its a photo finish, I think Oswald would win, albeit under protest. A protest that would be surely be upheld by the stewards.
Good luck with your bets.

Paul Francisco Paso

Posts : 283
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Paul Francisco Paso on Thu 16 Oct 2014, 7:22 am

Hasan Yusuf wrote:
greg parker wrote:Okay. I think we've got the Cup sorted out. You guys in the US don't know how to live. Victorians get a freakin' public holiday for this race.

Yep, we sure do. And I must say, I have no complaints about it.  Very Happy
The rest of us don't do much work that day anyways.

Paul Francisco Paso

Posts : 283
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Guest on Thu 16 Oct 2014, 8:59 am

Paul,
           The reason for my selections is because of the number of people possible in each group. If we are betting the odds are usually on the largest percentage of possible winners. While it may be that some have decided the person is Oswald without conclusive proof, it must in my view stand up to intense scrutiny. In order for our research to stand against those who might be biased or have a contradictory agenda it requires high standards of verification. 

Unlike with photographs, I do have experience in historical research, debate, and writing. So in these realms I feel reasonably adept at making feasible claims based upon substantial evidence. I do not begrudge those who choose to use other methods, I just rely on those methods easiest to verify with as little interpretation as necessary.

In my view the "anyone but Oswald" and "Oswald" choices are more improbable based on the number possible in other categories. I would also refer to the other figures suggested over the years that were incorrectly called Oswald or remain unverified.


Last edited by Carmine Savastano on Thu 16 Oct 2014, 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Additional ideas)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by greg parker on Thu 16 Oct 2014, 9:46 am

Carmine,
while it may not be strong enough for some, I base my opinion on:

1. Oswald saying he went out to see what the commotion was about (I believe the "commotion" being referred to was the crowd cheering the approaching motorcade rather than the assassination).

2. Early newspaper reports of his being seen near a storage room on the first floor straight after the assassination and further reports that he was stopped by a cop at the front entrance as he was going to leave.

3. The fact that if he came out later than everyone else and stood behind them in the shadows, no one would have noticed him - and thus no one placed him there.

4. A stranger from the crowd would have had to bustle his way up and take a poorer viewing spot than he otherwise would have had on the street or a lower step, thus making the "stranger from the crowd" theory unlikely (though not impossible).

5. The fact that every other white male worker from inside the building can be accounted for elsewhere.

6. The figure is consistent in clothing and general appearance to Oswald. 

7. The fact that the Lovelady dog bit, doesn't mean the PM dog will too.


Last edited by greg parker on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 7:06 am; edited 2 times in total

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Paul Francisco Paso on Thu 16 Oct 2014, 12:28 pm

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
           The reason for my selections is because of the number of people possible in each group. If we are betting the odds are usually on the largest percentage of possible winners. While it may be that some have decided the person is Oswald without conclusive proof, it must in my view stand up to intense scrutiny. In order for our research to stand against those who might be biased or have a contradictory agenda it requires high standards of verification. 

Unlike with photographs, I do have experience in historical research, debate, and writing. So in these realms I feel reasonably adept at making feasible claims based upon substantial evidence. I do not begrudge those who choose to use other methods, I just rely on those methods easiest to verify with as little interpretation as necessary.

In my view the "anyone but Oswald" and "Oswald" choices are more improbable based on the number possible in other categories. I would also refer to the other figures suggested over the years that were incorrectly called Oswald or remain unverified.
Your percentage of possibility with your chosen categories can be misleading, Carmine. Safety in numbers does not necessarily apply in this case. This photo is of a spectator on the steps of the TSBD. While I also don't begrudge your methods, they should at least take that salient fact into account when talking about probabilities, rather than dismiss the obvious ones for lack of a better photograph.

Paul Francisco Paso

Posts : 283
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Goban Saor on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 12:33 am

I would add to Greg’s list above:

8.  The fact that BW Frazier has prevaricated on the identity of Prayer Man. In other words, he hasn’t denied PM was Oswald when the question was put to him. In the context of his admission that he is scared of telling all he knows about the assassination, that speaks volumes.

9.  The implications of the jotting, ‘out with Bill Shelley in front’, in Fritz’s interrogation notes. That  effectively proves that LHO was in the vicinity of the TSBD doorway during the assassination. Else, how could he know Shelley was there? (And the fact that Shelley was there has been confirmed by BWF’s recent remarks to Albert Rossi). And since LHO was almost certainly in the vicinity of the doorway, which figure, other than PM, in the photographic and eye witness records of the assassination, could be him?

10.  Then there’s the whole array of interlocking evidence and arguments presented by Sean Murphy on the PM thread. Sean made a point of saying here at the time something to the effect that he chose to present his arguments in the adversarial setting of the Education Forum rather than in a forum such as this so that his arguments would be exposed to as wide a spectrum of scrutiny as possible, including that of the most extreme lone nutters. Nobody was able to present a credible rebuttal of his thesis and the most usually vociferous lone nutters remained for the most part silent during the discussion. Therefore, by the rules of rational discourse, Sean won hands down.

Carmine,

You seem to be downplaying the importance of ‘the whole array of interlocking evidence and arguments presented by Sean Murphy on the PM thread’ that supports the photographic evidence of PM being Oswald. You seem to be suggesting that it’s mostly or all just about the photographic evidence. I might well be wrong in my interpretation of your position and if I am, please correct me.

And finally, a question for you: Have you read the ‘Prayer Man thread’ in its entirety?

Goban Saor

Posts : 170
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Guest on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 12:45 am

Paul,
        I am not attempting to mislead, just making in my view the safest bet with the verified information I possess. Indeed safety in numbers may not apply, however until we have substantial evidence I would support it is a reasonable position. I do not dismiss it could be Oswald or anyone but, however I am not convinced they are better choices. Of course that is my view, as we are all free to have. 

Goban,
            I am not attempting to downplay Sean's work, nor his ideas. I voted in a poll. I noticed that those who did not vote a certain way are seemingly being considered to have less viable views. Thus I responded. Without conclusive evidence neither those who support the Commission, nor contend them in my view can make reliably definitive statements. Whether it is the SBT or Prayer Man. 

A significant problem with most photographic contentions is that hundreds of witnesses left Dealey Plaza without being interviewed or identified, is it not possible any of these people might be the figures claimed in some photographic contentions? I would support reasonable doubt exists. However, should substantial evidence be revealed to support the ideas I contend, I am willing to refine my view.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Goban Saor on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 4:39 am

Carmine,

We do have 'conclusive evidence' that Prayer Man is Lee Harvey Oswald. That evidence was provided by Buell Wesley Frazier.

This is the conclusive evidence:

The possibility of BWF not knowing whether or not PM is LHO is zero.

Therefore, the only possible reason for BWF not denying that PM is LHO is that PM is in fact LHO.

Goban Saor

Posts : 170
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Guest on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 6:33 am

Goban,
              I disagree. That in my view is not conclusive evidence. The Commission, nor anyone else to my knowledge identified all those present, perhaps not even a majority. I have read some Sean's work on the Education Forum and here. In the Education Forum thread Sean prior stated: 

"Just to clarify, I am not claiming that Prayer Man is Oswald, just that its a possibility meriting serious consideration." 

Prayer Man thread at Ed Forum

That seems reasonable, and is not conclusive. One problematic witness is not conclusive in my view. If someone does not answer a question to our satisfaction that does not render a non-answer being support for our ideas. 

As I stated you have your view, and I have mine. Different ideas in my view are beneficial and lead to different lines of inquiry that can reveal new evidence. Additionally there are many wrong answers, and only a single correct one. I do claim to possess the conclusive answer, I would recommend without substantial evidence no one should. 

Greg,

I appreciate your explanation and your additional discussion on the matter.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Goban Saor on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 6:39 am

Carmine,

If Buell Wesley Frazier explicitly confirmed that Prayer Man was Lee Harvey Oswald, would you consider that to be 'conclusive evidence'?

Goban Saor

Posts : 170
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Stan Dane on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 6:57 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:I have read some Sean's work on the Education Forum and here. In the Education Forum thread Sean prior stated: 

"Just to clarify, I am not claiming that Prayer Man is Oswald, just that its a possibility meriting serious consideration." 

Prayer Man thread at Ed Forum

That seems reasonable, and is not conclusive.
Carmine:
 
I don't mean to argue here and I respect your views very much, but I must disagree with your characterization of Sean Murphy's statement here. Sean made that statement on August 18, 2013 (post #67), a mere four days after the thread started and prior to the bulk of the research. At this early time, he wasn't completely sure, and said so. His non-conclusive stance was reasonable then.
 
All of that changed by September 8 (post 647). Sean says here:   
 
"We know--for an absolute irrefutable fact, one backed up by the hard evidence of Wiegman movie frames--that Billy Lovelady was standing next to Prayer Man during the actual shooting.
"So this can only be Lee Oswald.
"And the man near him can only be Buell Wesley Frazier (who was put forward several times earlier in this thread as a candidate for Prayer Man)--his hairline and hairstyle are just too distinctive to allow any serious doubt on that score.
"Game over."

Stan Dane

Posts : 2330
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Paul Francisco Paso on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 8:33 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
        I am not attempting to mislead, just making in my view the safest bet with the verified information I possess. Indeed safety in numbers may not apply, however until we have substantial evidence I would support it is a reasonable position. I do not dismiss it could be Oswald or anyone but, however I am not convinced they are better choices. Of course that is my view, as we are all free to have. 

Goban,
            I am not attempting to downplay Sean's work, nor his ideas. I voted in a poll. I noticed that those who did not vote a certain way are seemingly being considered to have less viable views. Thus I responded. Without conclusive evidence neither those who support the Commission, nor contend them in my view can make reliably definitive statements. Whether it is the SBT or Prayer Man. 

A significant problem with most photographic contentions is that hundreds of witnesses left Dealey Plaza without being interviewed or identified, is it not possible any of these people might be the figures claimed in some photographic contentions? I would support reasonable doubt exists. However, should substantial evidence be revealed to support the ideas I contend, I am willing to refine my view.
Carmine, I am not suggesting you are meaning to mislead. Your methods of coming up with a safe bet are flawed as far as PM is concerned. You can't easily disregard or dismiss a lot of the real substance that Sean Murphy and others have put forward with their claims and then pay heed to the notion of PM being a likely Stranger in the Crowd or a Houston St Employee without offering any of the substantial evidence that you ask of others who entertain the idea of PM being Oswald. Your choices are not safe bets and you haven't proven them to be. You've chosen to undermine Sean Murphy's assessment as not being substantial enough to meet your criteria while at the same time offered nothing substantial for your choices.
Let me ask you what evidence do you have that PM might be a Stranger In The Crowd or a Houston St Employee other than that you don't believe PM might be Oswald?

Paul Francisco Paso

Posts : 283
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Guest on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 12:22 pm

Paul,
         Again, "in your opinion" my view undermines Sean, like your other contention I would dispute that as well. We all have the right to our views based on evidence, despite what others contend. I am not trying to prove it is not Oswald, nor is, it is not my contention. 

I refer to the large chances for error with so many unidentified people present, and conclusive evidence does exist yet to prove the idea.  Attempting to degrade my view because it does not agree with yours is not proof of anything. 

It just seemingly attempts to change the topic from Goban's claim of Prayer Man being conclusive. The evidence and prior statements of Sean should be considered as well. Whether it is officials, critics, or advocates, perhaps some should not question other people's views if they do not want an honest answer.

If my views are incorrect I am willing to refine them, I wonder if others are as well.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Paul Francisco Paso on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 1:44 pm

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
         Again, "in your opinion" my view undermines Sean, like your other contention I would dispute that as well. We all have the right to our views based on evidence, despite what others contend. I am not trying to prove it is not Oswald, nor is, it is not my contention. 

I refer to the large chances for error with so many unidentified people present, and conclusive evidence does exist yet to prove the idea.  Attempting to degrade my view because it does not agree with yours is not proof of anything. 

It just seemingly attempts to change the topic from Goban's claim of Prayer Man being conclusive. The evidence and prior statements of Sean should be considered as well. Whether it is officials, critics, or advocates, perhaps some should not question other people's views if they do not want an honest answer.

If my views are incorrect I am willing to refine them, I wonder if others are as well.
Carmine, I am not denying you the right to your view nor am I in the business of degrading it. I suggest not only that you should stand by it, but exercise your right to defend it using all the conclusive evidence you are able to muster. Show me why you believe PM is a Stranger from The Crowd or a Houston St Employee. Sean has shown you why he believes PM is Oswald so if you believe PM is a Stranger In The Crowd or a Houston St Employee, then you should do the same. This 'refer to the large chances for error with so many unidentified people present,' is not substantial evidence of anything. PM is standing on the steps of the TSBD along with other TSBD employees. What are the chances he might be a TSBD employee?
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I voted in this poll but if did I would've chosen Oswald. If my views are incorrect I'd be only too happy to refine them also. I've done it many times before with other aspects of this case. This would be no different. Its not like I'll die a slow death if I am wrong about this. If that were the case I would've been dead long ago.

Paul Francisco Paso

Posts : 283
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by greg parker on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 2:18 pm

Paul,

I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but I think this is proceeding on a fundamental misunderstanding. If I have it right, Carmine and maybe one other, chose "stranger in the crowd" because the option they wanted was not available (I'm guessing something like "Inconclusive"). 

If Carmine has anything to defend, it is his contention that Sean left the thread as he found it - with no definitive answer to the question.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Paul Francisco Paso on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 3:58 pm

greg parker wrote:Paul,

I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but I think this is proceeding on a fundamental misunderstanding. If I have it right, Carmine and maybe one other, chose "stranger in the crowd" because the option they wanted was not available (I'm guessing something like "Inconclusive"). 

If Carmine has anything to defend, it is his contention that Sean left the thread as he found it - with no definitive answer to the question.
I can't find any indication that Carmine chose his option in lieu of another, Greg. If that were the case then I believe he would have mentioned it by now.
I am taking Carmine to task over the manner he has come to his conclusions. He cites the lack of substantial evidence and poor image quality for his reasoning but offers nothing in return beyond not being able to accept that it could be Oswald or anyone else for that matter. It's ironic that he cannot prove his own contention without disproving the contention of others.
I like Carmine and enjoy his essays. My favourite of his is when he gave it to Dave Reitzes and his so called Skeptics article. I sure hope he doesn't think this is a personal grudge or anything like that. I have too much respect for him to go so low. I might appear a tad aggressive but that is just my passion and Spanish hot blood getting the better of me at times. I don't agree with him on this. Not even half way.

Paul Francisco Paso

Posts : 283
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by greg parker on Fri 17 Oct 2014, 5:09 pm

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:
greg parker wrote:Paul,

I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but I think this is proceeding on a fundamental misunderstanding. If I have it right, Carmine and maybe one other, chose "stranger in the crowd" because the option they wanted was not available (I'm guessing something like "Inconclusive"). 

If Carmine has anything to defend, it is his contention that Sean left the thread as he found it - with no definitive answer to the question.
I can't find any indication that Carmine chose his option in lieu of another, Greg. If that were the case then I believe he would have mentioned it by now.
I am taking Carmine to task over the manner he has come to his conclusions. He cites the lack of substantial evidence and poor image quality for his reasoning but offers nothing in return beyond not being able to accept that it could be Oswald or anyone else for that matter. It's ironic that he cannot prove his own contention without disproving the contention of others.
I like Carmine and enjoy his essays. My favourite of his is when he gave it to Dave Reitzes and his so called Skeptics article. I sure hope he doesn't think this is a personal grudge or anything like that. I have too much respect for him to go so low. I might appear a tad aggressive but that is just my passion and Spanish hot blood getting the better of me at times. I don't agree with him on this. Not even half way.
Fair enough, Paul.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Guest on Sat 18 Oct 2014, 12:48 am

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:
Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
         Again, "in your opinion" my view undermines Sean, like your other contention I would dispute that as well. We all have the right to our views based on evidence, despite what others contend. I am not trying to prove it is not Oswald, nor is, it is not my contention. 

I refer to the large chances for error with so many unidentified people present, and conclusive evidence does exist yet to prove the idea.  Attempting to degrade my view because it does not agree with yours is not proof of anything. 

It just seemingly attempts to change the topic from Goban's claim of Prayer Man being conclusive. The evidence and prior statements of Sean should be considered as well. Whether it is officials, critics, or advocates, perhaps some should not question other people's views if they do not want an honest answer.

If my views are incorrect I am willing to refine them, I wonder if others are as well.
Carmine, I am not denying you the right to your view nor am I in the business of degrading it. I suggest not only that you should stand by it, but exercise your right to defend it using all the conclusive evidence you are able to muster. Show me why you believe PM is a Stranger from The Crowd or a Houston St Employee. Sean has shown you why he believes PM is Oswald so if you believe PM is a Stranger In The Crowd or a Houston St Employee, then you should do the same. This 'refer to the large chances for error with so many unidentified people present,' is not substantial evidence of anything. PM is standing on the steps of the TSBD along with other TSBD employees. What are the chances he might be a TSBD employee?
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I voted in this poll but if did I would've chosen Oswald. If my views are incorrect I'd be only too happy to refine them also. I've done it many times before with other aspects of this case. This would be no different. Its not like I'll die a slow death if I am wrong about this. If that were the case I would've been dead long ago.

Paul,
           Indeed i did not make a choice in lieu of the another, it was the best choice among those available in my view. I do not seek to prove or disprove this idea, I merely explained why I chose as I did. Since I am not committed to either proving or disproving this hypothesis I do not need to offer evidence of its strength or weakness. 

Based upon what I have reviewed I do not agree it is conclusive and thus not a fact as some would contend. I will defend contentions I make, this is simply my view on the current discussion. Again I do not claim that Sean or his work is not credible or compelling to some, it just in my view is not conclusive. 

You are not "taking me to task" you are defending an idea as conclusive without me attacking the idea but offering possible alternative choices and restating what the creator originally thought of the hypothesis, that it is not conclusive. If others are to be convinced it is not us who must conform to the idea but the evidence should convince us of the idea in my view. As before I do not claim it is not Oswald or is Oswald but what I found most likely in the choices. My view can be refined with evidence but not claims or allusions to why I am wrong for answering a question that was asked.


Last edited by Carmine Savastano on Sat 18 Oct 2014, 12:56 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : sentence correction added the word "a")

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Goban Saor on Sat 18 Oct 2014, 1:44 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
         Again, "in your opinion" my view undermines Sean, like your other contention I would dispute that as well. We all have the right to our views based on evidence, despite what others contend. I am not trying to prove it is not Oswald, nor is, it is not my contention. 

I refer to the large chances for error with so many unidentified people present, and conclusive evidence does exist yet to prove the idea.  Attempting to degrade my view because it does not agree with yours is not proof of anything. 

It just seemingly attempts to change the topic from Goban's claim of Prayer Man being conclusive. The evidence and prior statements of Sean should be considered as well. Whether it is officials, critics, or advocates, perhaps some should not question other people's views if they do not want an honest answer.

If my views are incorrect I am willing to refine them, I wonder if others are as well.
Carmine,

You say, ‘It just seemingly attempts to change the topic from Goban's claim of Prayer Man being conclusive.’

That seems like a very clever ‘divide and conquer’ tactic. Indeed there’s a nasty edge to it that doesn’t reflect well on you. But I don’t want to be diverted by that now.

Yesterday I presented conclusive evidence that Prayer Man was Oswald, namely:

In the circumstances, the only possible reason for BW Frazier not denying that Prayer Man was LH Oswald is that Prayer Man is LH Oswald.

You replied to this among other things in one of your posts yesterday by saying:

'One problematic witness is not conclusive in my view. If someone does not answer a question to our satisfaction that does not render a non-answer being support for our ideas.' 

That is a clever answer that evades the substance of the issue. The first sentence is the old ‘shooting the messenger’ ploy, a time honoured method of shutting out any information that a person doesn’t want to hear.

The second sentence misrepresents the issue. The issue is not about Frazier not answering a question to our satisfaction. It’s about Frazier not answering a question. Period.

‘to our satisfaction’ doesn’t come into it.

It’s about Frazier not answering a crucial question that was put to him. And it’s about the inescapable logical implication of that.

Your evasion and misrepresentation is further indicative of the validity of my reasoning. If my reasoning were flawed you would be able to properly identify how it was flawed. You have failed to do so.

Goban Saor

Posts : 170
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Guest on Sat 18 Oct 2014, 2:43 am

Goban,
             You are now reading into my statements and making apsersions about me because we disagree. That in my view is not valid inquiry, nor a reasonable position. Had I known that so many would be offended that I did not agree perhaps I would not have stated anything. 

That is the chilling effect of those who will not consider ideas they contend. Yesterday you claimed that the evidence was conclusive, I disagree. You attacking me or making allusions that I seek to divide and conquer are based on your mere opinions, they like the Prayer Man claims are not conclusive, nor in my view compelling. 

Now you claim evasion and misrepresentation? Personal attacks do not become you, nor prove your ideas. You can believe whatever you wish, however without conclusive proof it remains your opinion. 

The substance of the issue in my view is this, what legal evidence, not just ideas, exist to conclusively prove the Prayer Man contention? How many photographic experts have verified the idea? Has it ever been submitted to officials or the media for reply? You claim it is conclusive, yet where is the conclusive evidence?

The agreed purpose I do believe of all of gathered here is re-opening the Kennedy case. To accomplish that requires having legal proof to use as support for our contentions. Proof that cannot be easily challenged with reasonable ideas, proof that is legally verified so officials cannot evade its contents. Without substantial legal proof and expert support, this idea remains inconclusive, in my view.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Goban Saor on Sat 18 Oct 2014, 3:17 am

Carmine,

I made no personal attack on you. I pointed out specific flaws in your approach and in your posts. Insofar as there were any implications for you personally arising from those flaws, that is unavoidable and in any event that is something you are responsible for – the flaws I pointed out are yours not mine.

We could go on taking umbrage at each other’s posts ad infinitum. But what’s the point in that?

Meanwhile, my reasoning on Frazier’s non-reply goes unrefuted. If I am in error in this, I would welcome being shown in a logical manner how I am in error.

Otherwise I can only conclude that my reasoning is correct.

Goban Saor

Posts : 170
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Post by Sponsored content Today at 8:59 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum