Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man

Sun 11 Sep 2016, 1:23 am

First topic message reminder :

From the Webs Forum.

buell - Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man - Page 2 ?siteId=87372064&memberId=128900780&size=small&426755

buell - Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man - Page 2 ?siteId=87372064&memberId=128900780&size=small&426755

Vinny
Member
Posts: 533
Albert Rossi on Tue 30 Sep 2014, 7:08 pm

Hi all. I was at the AARC. I figured I might as well try it again, so I approached Buell with the

Robin Unger enhancement of the Darnell frame on my laptop desktop, and asked him

1. if that was him

2. who the other figure was.

He admitted 1. was him.

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

Note he says it probably wasn't Lovelady.

Why mention Lovelady? Lovelady was a guy who resembled Oswald to some extent.Perhaps what he was hinting something like this.

The guy is not Lovelady,but the guy who resembled Lovelady, a guy named Lee Oswald.

Otherwise why did he suddenly mention Lovelady when shown the PM image?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Thu 17 Aug 2017, 8:08 pm

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

Thu 17 Aug 2017, 8:26 pm

Frazier seems to be glancing toward PM here.

buell - Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man - Page 2 Prayer10

Sat 13 Jan 2018, 9:40 pm

Frazier demonstrating how Oswald carried the alleged bag.

buell - Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man - Page 2 Frazier

Sun 14 Jan 2018, 5:59 am

Vinny wrote:Frazier demonstrating how Oswald carried the alleged bag.

Clear evidence that LHO carried a cheese baguette, not a sandwich. Where did he put the apple?

Sun 14 Jan 2018, 7:51 am

Steely

Thu 25 Jan 2018, 11:17 am

What a sack of shit Frazier is (PTP). Lying hound!There was NO sack/bag. Period. It's all theatre on Fraziers part.
I don't know why he keeps the performance up.....

Sheilds and Givens were certain to have seen Oswald with a sack if he was actually with Frazier, the fact not one of them spoke of seeing Oswald with Frazier that morning is a clue to Frazier's deceit.

IMO the sack story was invented by the Randles aka Linnie Mae, possibly Ruth and even Bill before Friday.I'm not certain Frazier was in on it. ( certainly told to be in on it later that day though, maybe around 2.00pm when he went MIA) The fact that Linnie Mae approached the Paine's house at some time around 2.30pm-3.00pm and dumped on Lee and her own brother is enough for me to Call out Linnie Mae Randle as a witting participant in the frame of Lee Oswald.

IMO Frazier absolutely confirms Oswald is on those steps with him just after the shots were fired in the way he describes who it is not from the viewing of the Darnell PM pic. Not a stranger, not Lovelady (theres your answer right there). PM = Oswald. Frazier all but says so.

Frazier is hiding shit, He lied. I know he did, I've spent hundreds of hours going through his statements, his WC testimonies his Shaw Court appearance, his media interviews.....he's not a good liar. theirs more holes in his stuff than a piece of swiss cheese.

Food for thought, Linnie Mae and possibly Bill Randle were in on the framing of Oswald.... telescopic sights, missing all day Friday at least until 7.00pm, trips to Austin, Linnie Mae dumping on Lee (when clearly there was no sack) and in effect dumping on her own brother.....and ask yourself this, if there is no sack, why did/would she go to the Paine's house to lag on Lee, why? We know that answer. Those hours after the assassination Frazier was MIA. I believe shitting himself as Linnie Mae unfurled the story of the curtain rods, the sack and the ride into work that morning. Speculation of course!

Tue 24 Jul 2018, 9:03 pm

Apparently Frazier's book will be released in November.

Wed 25 Jul 2018, 12:45 am

Vinny wrote:Frazier seems to be glancing toward PM here.

The position of his shoulders shows Frazier is standing at about a 45 degree angle to PM. If PM is West on the compass, BWF is standing east of him, facing SW.

buell - Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man - Page 2 PM%20compass

buell - Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man - Page 2 PM%20compass

PM is clearly in Frazier's field of view.

CAN ANYONE OUTSIDE OF ROKC SEE WHAT IS SO GODDAMNED OBVIOUS HERE?!
ANYONE?!
DOESN'T SOMETHING LIKE THIS AROUSE ANY CURIOSITY?!
ANY?!
OR ARE YOU IN A HYPNOTIC TRANCE?

Wed 25 Jul 2018, 2:51 am

It's the slimmest, most manly looking 300lb woman (wearing a wig in a professional situation) I've ever seen.

Tue 23 Oct 2018, 2:34 pm

Apparently Frazier is claiming that PM is Stanton.

Tue 23 Oct 2018, 2:35 pm

Wed 24 Oct 2018, 5:53 pm

Conway put my name there first and then realised her mistake.
But it does not say anywhere that Stanton stood to his right, whereas we have 3 vids incl the GM interview where she was to his left!

http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/sarah-stanton/

Meanwhile Debbie chucked in her FB membership due to the trolling by Doyle, oh well Brian one platform less to stalk and troll at!!!! Back to smoking that Sanibel Gold and hatch a new manipulative scheme Laughing

Wed 24 Oct 2018, 11:16 pm

Yes. It’s too late now for BWF to change his story – the story he has unwittingly told repeatedly through his prevarication and body language.

“Trust the tale, not the teller.” (DH Lawrence)

Did Frazier Indirectly Identify Prayer Man