Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Lazy Bastard
Today at 4:08 pm by greg parker

» ROKC Art Gallery
Today at 9:25 am by steely dan

» Hargrove Claiming Victory
Today at 9:20 am by Jake Sykes

» Baker created his own shadow on the pavement at the end of Darnell
Today at 8:42 am by Stan Dane

» Anatomy Of A Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter
Yesterday at 6:51 pm by barto

» Invitation to Dr Norwood
Fri 22 Sep 2017, 6:05 pm by greg parker

» IT HAS FINALLY COME DOWN TO COUNTING TEETH...
Fri 22 Sep 2017, 2:56 pm by greg parker

» the plot to kill hitler
Fri 22 Sep 2017, 2:11 pm by beowulf

» Open letter to NBC
Fri 22 Sep 2017, 11:51 am by BC_II

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

kangaroo  Prayer  Vaganov  books  doyle  

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 : 237
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

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin


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

Posts : 4296
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 : 237
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 : 2765
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 : 237
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 : 237
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by Vinny on Sun 13 Aug 2017, 8:01 pm

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,14498.7.html?PHPSESSID=1ad7fcfa8e39477b1a59c295c70febcd


Lee Kania


  • Super Member

Re: Who Is This Guy?
« Reply #9 on: Today at 12:40:40 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe he actually did or maybe he would have and just didn't get the chance.

Personally I believe the Prayer Person theory is one of the silliest theories in the whole JFK assassination.

If you believe this, then you have to believe Oswald deny a perfect alibi. He claimed to be eating his lunch
in the first floor lunchroom, known as the Domino room, where he just happen to see 2 TBD employees who admitted they were also in the Domino room at about that time.

You have to disbelieve the entire Roy Truly, Officer Baker encounter with Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

You have to believe that not one employee who stood on the steps or out in front of the steps saw Oswald on the top step near the front door even as some pass right by him to go back inside.

I have interviewed Frazier by phone and asked him about the mysterious figure in the corner. He says he does not recognize the person, and insists he only saw Oswald a few minutes after the shots were fired walking up Houston Street. He assume at the time, Oswald was going to buy his lunch because he told him he had curtain rods in his bag, and hadn't brought his lunch. I personally believe Oswald lied about the curtain rods and his lunch was in the over sized bag. He may have had his lunch in a smaller bag, inside the bigger bag and got rid of the bigger bag at some point?

Posters have insinuated from police interview notes that Oswald talked to Shelly his supervisor on the steps. Shelly has denied seeing or talking to Oswald after noon time. 

So no one sees Oswald outside on the steps and Oswald himself as far as we can logically follow from contradicting police interview notes, does not say he was out on the front steps which would have given him a perfect alibi. And according to Roy Truly and Officer Baker there was an encounter with Oswald 75-90 seconds after the last shot in the 2nd floor lunchroom . This is further reinforced by Mrs. Reid, a 2nd floor office secretary who saw Oswald come through the office door with a coke in his hand about 2 minutes after the last shot was fired. So to believe Oswald is on the steps you have to disbelieve several witness testimonies. 

We need to use common sense and wisdom and not fall in love with pet theories when facts obviously prove them wrong.

Vinny

Posts : 382
Join date : 2013-08-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by Ed. Ledoux on Tue 15 Aug 2017, 11:13 am

That personage has only a fundamental grasp of the material and timing.

The alibi is not a lunchroom
avatar
Ed. Ledoux

Posts : 1117
Join date : 2012-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by greg parker on Tue 15 Aug 2017, 12:11 pm

Ed. Ledoux wrote:That personage has only a fundamental grasp of the material and timing.

The alibi is not a lunchroom
That was 5 minutes before the shooting.

These deniers tend to jump on Oswald allegedly not specifying he was on the steps at the precise time of the shooting.

But I'm not sure I would mention it either if I only just ducked out for a few seconds and had no reason to think an assassination had occurred while I was out there... most thought bike/car backfires or fireworks and it took a short little while for news to filter that Kennedy had been shot... enough time anyway for Oswald to have gone back in before it became known.

_________________
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

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin


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

Posts : 4296
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 Tue 15 Aug 2017, 4:47 pm

Vinny wrote:https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,14498.7.html?PHPSESSID=1ad7fcfa8e39477b1a59c295c70febcd


Lee Kania






  • Super Member

Re: Who Is This Guy?
« Reply #9 on: Today at 12:40:40 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe he actually did or maybe he would have and just didn't get the chance.

Personally I believe the Prayer Person theory is one of the silliest theories in the whole JFK assassination.

If you believe this, then you have to believe Oswald deny a perfect alibi. He claimed to be eating his lunch
in the first floor lunchroom, known as the Domino room, where he just happen to see 2 TBD employees who admitted they were also in the Domino room at about that time.

You have to disbelieve the entire Roy Truly, Officer Baker encounter with Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

You have to believe that not one employee who stood on the steps or out in front of the steps saw Oswald on the top step near the front door even as some pass right by him to go back inside.

I have interviewed Frazier by phone and asked him about the mysterious figure in the corner. He says he does not recognize the person, and insists he only saw Oswald a few minutes after the shots were fired walking up Houston Street. He assume at the time, Oswald was going to buy his lunch because he told him he had curtain rods in his bag, and hadn't brought his lunch. I personally believe Oswald lied about the curtain rods and his lunch was in the over sized bag. He may have had his lunch in a smaller bag, inside the bigger bag and got rid of the bigger bag at some point?

Posters have insinuated from police interview notes that Oswald talked to Shelly his supervisor on the steps. Shelly has denied seeing or talking to Oswald after noon time. 

So no one sees Oswald outside on the steps and Oswald himself as far as we can logically follow from contradicting police interview notes, does not say he was out on the front steps which would have given him a perfect alibi. And according to Roy Truly and Officer Baker there was an encounter with Oswald 75-90 seconds after the last shot in the 2nd floor lunchroom . This is further reinforced by Mrs. Reid, a 2nd floor office secretary who saw Oswald come through the office door with a coke in his hand about 2 minutes after the last shot was fired. So to believe Oswald is on the steps you have to disbelieve several witness testimonies. 

We need to use common sense and wisdom and not fall in love with pet theories when facts obviously prove them wrong.
On the thread entitled “The FBI status of the case” I recently proposed that someone from ROKC inform the FBI of Frazier’s prevarication about Prayer Man. This might be a very simple and straightforward way of getting the case reopened or reactivated.
 
The response to my proposal is somewhat perplexing.

Goban Saor

Posts : 237
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by Ed. Ledoux on Tue 15 Aug 2017, 5:38 pm

Seeing as no one mentions Shelley out front except before and during the shooting, as he left stairs and entered rear of building soon after, that would put Lee being out front with Bill Shelley either, before, during, or very soon after.
That is unshakeable.

First floor is equally a non starter with DPD as a location for a sixth floor assassin.
Damn if they let Lee be out front, so the talk is Lunchroom, do not take his alibi outside is the order!!
Lunchrooms can be interchanged, maybe vestibules and stairs... but Out is OUT!!
Inside is okay.
Outside is verboten.

My money is on Out Front was an alibi denied.

Lunches and sodas would get you the electric chair.
avatar
Ed. Ledoux

Posts : 1117
Join date : 2012-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by Vinny on Thu 17 Aug 2017, 8:08 pm

Maybe if Frazier could be offered immunity from prosecution,he might admit that it is Oswald.

Vinny

Posts : 382
Join date : 2013-08-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Post by Vinny on Thu 17 Aug 2017, 8:26 pm

Frazier seems to be glancing toward PM here.


Vinny

Posts : 382
Join date : 2013-08-27

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