Home
Portal
Events
ROKC Wiki
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
Prayer Man Poll
+13
barto
Geronimo
dwdunn(akaDan)
Vinny
steely_dan
StanDane
Goban_Saor
M.Ellis
Colin_Crow
beowulf
deepsnow1
Albert Rossi
ianlloyd
17 posters
Who is Prayer Man?
greg_parkerAdmin- Posts : 8335
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia 
Prayer Man Poll
Thu 19 Sep 2013, 11:08 pm
First topic message reminder :
Where do you stand?
Where do you stand?
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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.
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.
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8335
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: Prayer Man Poll
Wed 15 Oct 2014, 7:55 pm
Thanks Carmine. I'll keep a close eye on the betting.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.
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
TerryWMartin- Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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.
_________________
If God had intended Man to do anything except copulate, He would have given us brains.
- - - Ignatz Verbotham
Hasan Yusuf- Posts : 1899
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 35
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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.
- GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
Thu 16 Oct 2014, 7:12 am
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).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.
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.
- GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
Thu 16 Oct 2014, 7:22 am
The rest of us don't do much work that day anyways.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.
- GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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.
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.
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8335
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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.
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.
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
- GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
Thu 16 Oct 2014, 12:28 pm
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.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.
- Goban_Saor
- Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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?
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?
_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)
The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)
So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
- GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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.
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.
- Goban_Saor
- Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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.
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.
_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)
The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)
So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
- GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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.
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.
- Goban_Saor
- Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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'?
If Buell Wesley Frazier explicitly confirmed that Prayer Man was Lee Harvey Oswald, would you consider that to be 'conclusive evidence'?
_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)
The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)
So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
StanDane- Posts : 3645
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: Prayer Man Poll
Fri 17 Oct 2014, 6:57 am
Carmine: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.
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."
- GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
Fri 17 Oct 2014, 8:33 am
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.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.
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?
- GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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.
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.
- GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
Fri 17 Oct 2014, 1:44 pm
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?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.
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.
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8335
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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.
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.
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
- GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
Fri 17 Oct 2014, 3:58 pm
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.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 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.
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8335
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: Prayer Man Poll
Fri 17 Oct 2014, 5:09 pm
Fair enough, Paul.Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote: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.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 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.
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
- GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
Sat 18 Oct 2014, 12:48 am
Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote: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?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.
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.
- Goban_Saor
- Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16
Re: Prayer Man Poll
Sat 18 Oct 2014, 1:44 am
Carmine,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.
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.
_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)
The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)
So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
- GuestGuest
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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.
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.
- Goban_Saor
- Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16
Re: Prayer Man Poll
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.
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.
_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)
The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)
So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum