Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» The FBI status of the case
Today at 2:20 am by Goban Saor

» question on odio
Yesterday at 2:47 pm by greg parker

» Hyde My Paine
Yesterday at 7:02 am by barto

» Cops never do wrong
Sun 23 Jul 2017, 12:54 pm by Jake Sykes

» Remembering Gary Mack: The No Rose-Colored Glasses Version
Sun 23 Jul 2017, 4:11 am by Stan Dane

» No Shots Fired From The TSBD
Sat 22 Jul 2017, 5:06 am by Ed. Ledoux

» The Unitarian Church
Fri 21 Jul 2017, 4:01 pm by Ed. Ledoux

» Connecting the Dots
Thu 20 Jul 2017, 5:22 pm by barto

» the cia and cultural exchange programs
Thu 20 Jul 2017, 4:21 pm by Ed. Ledoux

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 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

Keywords

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by Mick Purdy on Sat 18 Mar 2017, 11:53 am

Goban Saor wrote:The answer to the question in the thread title is yes: Frazier did indirectly identify Prayer Man as LH Oswald.

As above noted, the Prayer Man question has been put to BW Frazier twice, first by Gary Mack in 2013 and second by Albert Rossi in 2014. On neither occasion did BWF deny that PM was Oswald. In the circumstances, that can only mean that PM is Oswald.

Unless someone produces conclusive photographic or other evidence to the contrary, on the basis of BWF’s testimony alone the case for PM being Oswald is proved.
And so say all of us Goban.

Stranger? most unlikely. Any other TSBD employee other than Oswald? No! Whom are we left with to consider who was PM? Oswald? Absolutely.

He said 2. "the photo 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."


That one line tells us all we need to know.
avatar
Mick Purdy

Posts : 359
Join date : 2013-07-26
Location : Melbourne Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by Goban Saor on Sat 18 Mar 2017, 11:19 pm

Paul Francisco Paso wrote:I agree that by Frazier not discounting Oswald as PM is revealing. If only he would just come out and say it outright.
Yes, Paul, it would be great if he did. It’s easy to see why he doesn’t though.

By coming out now and stating explicitly that PM is Oswald, Frazier would be admitting that he has withheld vital information about the JFK assassination for over half a century.

Admitting to have committed what is probably a serious criminal offence could have grave consequences for Frazier.

And then there are the possible other adverse consequences for himself and his family of coming clean that he has spoken about.

There is only one logical conclusion to be drawn from Frazier’s prevarication on Prayer Man, which is that Prayer Man is Oswald.

Of course sasquatch seekers, Holocaust deniers and such types accept logic only when it suits them. Even if Frazier did come clean on Prayer Man, they would probably find some bogus reason to dismiss it. Frazier would be an “uncredible” witness they would say – that was the fall-back position of Carmine Savastano here a couple of years ago when I cornered him on the significance of Frazier’s prevarication.

As ROKCers well know, those kinds of people are good for a laugh and nothing more.

Goban Saor

Posts : 219
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by greg parker on Sat 18 Mar 2017, 11:27 pm

Goban Saor wrote:
Paul Francisco Paso wrote:I agree that by Frazier not discounting Oswald as PM is revealing. If only he would just come out and say it outright.
Yes, Paul, it would be great if he did. It’s easy to see why he doesn’t though.

By coming out now and stating explicitly that PM is Oswald, Frazier would be admitting that he has withheld vital information about the JFK assassination for over half a century.

Admitting to have committed what is probably a serious criminal offence could have grave consequences for Frazier.

And then there are the possible other adverse consequences for himself and his family of coming clean that he has spoken about.

There is only one logical conclusion to be drawn from Frazier’s prevarication on Prayer Man, which is that Prayer Man is Oswald.

Of course sasquatch seekers, Holocaust deniers and such types accept logic only when it suits them. Even if Frazier did come clean on Prayer Man, they would probably find some bogus reason to dismiss it. Frazier would be an “uncredible” witness they would say – that was the fall-back position of Carmine Savastano here a couple of years ago when I cornered him on the significance of Frazier’s prevarication.

As ROKCers well know, those kinds of people are good for a laugh and nothing more.
Unfortunately for Doyle, Frazier, when shown PM, did not identify it as a female - let alone a specific female. If Doyle is right about who it is, Frazier had no reason not to duly confirm it.

_________________
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

The 2017 ROKC Conference tickets and info
https://www.thenewdisease.space/conference
avatar
greg parker
Admin

Posts : 4136
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 59
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by Goban Saor on Sat 18 Mar 2017, 11:55 pm

greg parker wrote:
Goban Saor wrote:
Paul Francisco Paso wrote:I agree that by Frazier not discounting Oswald as PM is revealing. If only he would just come out and say it outright.
Yes, Paul, it would be great if he did. It’s easy to see why he doesn’t though.

By coming out now and stating explicitly that PM is Oswald, Frazier would be admitting that he has withheld vital information about the JFK assassination for over half a century.

Admitting to have committed what is probably a serious criminal offence could have grave consequences for Frazier.

And then there are the possible other adverse consequences for himself and his family of coming clean that he has spoken about.

There is only one logical conclusion to be drawn from Frazier’s prevarication on Prayer Man, which is that Prayer Man is Oswald.

Of course sasquatch seekers, Holocaust deniers and such types accept logic only when it suits them. Even if Frazier did come clean on Prayer Man, they would probably find some bogus reason to dismiss it. Frazier would be an “uncredible” witness they would say – that was the fall-back position of Carmine Savastano here a couple of years ago when I cornered him on the significance of Frazier’s prevarication.

As ROKCers well know, those kinds of people are good for a laugh and nothing more.
Unfortunately for Doyle, Frazier, when shown PM, did not identify it as a female - let alone a specific female. If Doyle is right about who it is, Frazier had no reason not to duly confirm it.
Yet another of the many inconvenient facts which Doyle conveniently ignores.

Goban Saor

Posts : 219
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by Stan Dane on Sun 19 Mar 2017, 12:26 am

Goban Saor wrote:
greg parker wrote:Unfortunately for Doyle, Frazier, when shown PM, did not identify it as a female - let alone a specific female. If Doyle is right about who it is, Frazier had no reason not to duly confirm it.
Yet another of the many inconvenient facts which Doyle conveniently ignores.
Because, as he lectured someone recently, "I'm too smart."
avatar
Stan Dane

Posts : 2684
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 64

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by Goban Saor on Sun 19 Mar 2017, 9:24 pm

When I referred to Frazier’s “uncredibility” as a witness in my previous post I hadn’t noticed the latest phase of sasquatch seeking in the EF, which is concerned with just that – Frazier’s lack of credibility. They’ve spent a few pages now discussing it.

It is all a misdirection and it tells us nothing about the identity of Prayer Man. Everyone knows that nothing will come of it except further muddying of the water.

I have previously asked whether statement analysis specialist Peter Hyatt might be able to shed light on some of the statements, reports etc relating to the JFK assassination. Statement analysis is merely applied logic. It has already been undertaken in relation to Frazier’s responses to questions about PM specifically, starting with Sean Murphy’s analysis of Frazier’s response to Gary Mack asking Frazier about PM in 2013.

Sean Murphy concluded that Frazier’s response confirmed that PM was Oswald and an analysis of Frazier’s subsequent responses to the PM question further confirms the validity of that conclusion. To focus on one detail, Frazier’s claim not to have seen PM is contradicted by the film showing him interacting with PM. Now why would Frazier lie about that?

The obvious answer to that question has already been acknowledged here in ROKC. The only purpose being served by the verbiage in the EF about Frazier’s credibility is to obfuscate the fact that Frazier has effectively testified that PM is Oswald.

Goban Saor

Posts : 219
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by Goban Saor on Sun 19 Mar 2017, 10:02 pm

PS. Statement analysis as practised by Peter Hyatt does not depend on the credibility or otherwise of the person who has made the statement being analysed. It looks for what the statement reveals independently of the intent of person who made the statement. It is essentially based on the same principle invoked by DH Lawrence when he said, “Never trust the teller, trust the tale”.

The focus by the sasquatch seekers in the EF on Frazier’s credibility is a distraction from what Frazier’s statements can reveal on logical analysis – analysis that factors in Frazier’s prevarication and the reasons for his prevarication.

As above mentioned, that analysis has already been undertaken and it has delivered the clear incontrovertible conclusion that Prayer Man is Oswald.

That is the water the sasquatch seekers are attempting to muddy. 

Goban Saor

Posts : 219
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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