Anti Prayer Man Campaign

First topic message reminder :

Is it my imagination only or does it seem like there has been an increase in PM bashing lately?

For example

Bill Miller returns to the Education Forum and starts criticizing the Prayer Man theory.

Glenn Vikund recently posted some stuff on a Facebook group and also mentioned Prayer Man in a negative way.

James Gordon too recently seemed quite critical of Prayer Man.

Even Paul Trejo who in the past seems to have hardly noticed Prayer Man is now criticizing the Prayer Man as Oswald theory.

Duncan has deleted the Prayer Man threads at his forum and Deep Politics Forum does not allow any new Prayer Man threads to be started.

greg parker wrote:

steely dan wrote:Barto, if you post anymore disturbing images like the one above without prior warning, disciplinary measures may follow.

Harsh but fair.

The Prayer Man thread at the Ed Forum is now down at the 54th page. They have been quite successful in burying it.

Looks like the campaign is back in full swing.

Vinny wrote:Looks like the campaign is back in full swing.

Yes it is Vinny. The lady doth protesteth too much. They wouldn't work so hard if they didn't feel a very real need to fight it.

Jake_Sykes wrote:

Vinny wrote:Looks like the campaign is back in full swing.

Yes it is Vinny. The lady doth protesteth too much. They wouldn't work so hard if they didn't feel a very real need to fight it.

Pat Speer has proclaimed that his superiors, the Conspiratocracy, do not lower themselves to discuss such nonsense. So he is doing all the heavy lifting for them. Po' li'l Patsy. So much bullshit to spread. So little time. 

But all dinasoars die out. Usually in a cataclysmic fashion, but I suspect these ones will go with a whimper. So befitting of them.

They are mentally bankrupt on every spin.

greg_parker wrote:

Jake_Sykes wrote:

Vinny wrote:Looks like the campaign is back in full swing.

Yes it is Vinny. The lady doth protesteth too much. They wouldn't work so hard if they didn't feel a very real need to fight it.

Pat Speer has proclaimed that his superiors, the Conspiratocracy, do not lower themselves to discuss such nonsense. So he is doing all the heavy lifting for them. Po' li'l Patsy. So much bullshit to spread. So little time. 

But all dinasoars die out. Usually in a cataclysmic fashion, but I suspect these ones will go with a whimper. So befitting of them.

For they are the hollow dinosaurs
Headpieces stuffed with straw

The eyes are not there

Here we go round the prickly pear

This is how the world ends

TS, Eliot.

They care more about their egos and pet theories than about Oswald. With friends like these, Oswald does not need enemies.

Moronic CTers who are laughing stock.

Buy a vowel ffs.... Open your I's

PM is not a curly haired blonde woman.
Also not a grey haired obese midget lady.
Nor a stranger, cia plant, whistlers mother, or anyone else but Lee.
Yet alas poor yorick,
they will hunt a fruitless hunt.
Woe is thee.
I only hope their research process is less than 16 threads at 200 pages each for the DARK RECEDING HAIRLINE THAT MATCHES LEE'S.
Be a shame to cut into their: Men Are Really Women, and To Physique Or Not To Physique threads.

Cheers

They so desperately do not want it to be Oswald.

The campaign is back in full swing led by Prat and Karl. They seem desperate to shove Oswald off the TSBD steps.

barto wrote:Martin Shackleford is a CTer's wet dream, conjecture conjecture conjecture.....http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-shackelford.html
and then sucking JVB's tit while at it.
Has he ever accounted for his atrocious behaviour from that period? Of course not. Shackleford is an enormous malignant growth in researching this case.

Do we have the privilege to see the true face of barto above?

Karl Kinaski wrote:Dancing around the mandala of a blurred image has always been detrimental to mental health...

 It is not just about the image. There is a whole lot of supporting evidence besides that.

Karl Kinaski wrote:Dancing around the mandala of a blurred image has always been detrimental to mental health...

Nonsensical metaphors don't inspire confidence that you have any clue what you are talking about, Karl.

Karl Kinaski wrote:

barto wrote:Martin Shackleford is a CTer's wet dream, conjecture conjecture conjecture.....http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-shackelford.html
and then sucking JVB's tit while at it.
Has he ever accounted for his atrocious behaviour from that period? Of course not. Shackleford is an enormous malignant growth in researching this case.

Do we have the privilege to see the true face of barto above?

Of course

He absolutely nailed Martin and the monster he helped create.

Vinny wrote:

Karl Kinaski wrote:Dancing around the mandala of a blurred image has always been detrimental to mental health...

 It is not just about the image. There is a whole lot of supporting evidence besides that.

Of course there is Vinny. Mountains of it. But I realized providing it would only be casting pearls before Kinaskis.

Your prayer man might be a woman isn't it ... but NOT Sarah Stanton, Jim DiEugenio declares solemnly ... has he seen a secret screening ...  He can't tell, he declares, because he is bound by an NDA ...       ... LOL ... 


( I believe the processed pic below is from Chris Davidson. )

One angle that has always perplexed me is the focus on the blurry Prayer Man image by critics rather than the supporting evidence. Are they too lazy to read up on this? (The still above has been subjected to so much filtering it is worthless.)

There are now two sets of handwritten notes in the public domain that record Oswald claiming to be 'out with Bill Shelley in front' or simply 'outside' when the motorcade passed. For Warren critics who believe in Oswald's innocence, denying the PM figure is Oswald inevitably leads to the inference that he lied - and lied about the most critical of issues. 

Why would he do that?

Strangely, most of the critics align with LNs when it comes to the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter.

Yet how much faith can be placed on a story concocted late in the evening of November 22nd given that Marrion Baker failed to ID Oswald as the man he intercepted within the TSBD even when he was in the same room at City Hall?

StanDane wrote:

Good one Stan. Nice to see you back in the saddle with the memes man.

I love that page: It substitutes research with sarkasm. CTer nihilism at its finest. Always some fun. 


Back ON. 

But explain me one thing: Why Oswald at 7h55min Nov 22.11. 1963 when he had a short but good opportunity to talk with the press didn't say the few words: I was in front of the building during the shooting? as you Prayman folks all claim?  How stupid is your Oswald actually?

If you can't answer this question a sarcasm or good meme will do.

Kinaski (faker) thinks he is clever but his ignorance is showing quite clearly.
He thinks that, that particular segment was THE MOMENT for Oswald to state his alibi. Never mind the interrogation notes four hours prior.

And perhaps there were olther situations where Oswald could (!) have said his wishful scenario:
Did Kinaski see ALL the footage?
Did Kinaski listen to all the audio from that corridor?
No?

Oh!

You seem to have missed all that info from a book you claim to have read 20% of.

@Robert Johnson said, quote;

Kinaski  (...) thinks that that particular segment was THE MOMENT for Oswald to state his alibi. Never mind the interrogation notes four hours prior.

And perhaps there were olther situations where Oswald could (!) have said his wishful scenario:
Did Kinaski see ALL the footage?
Did Kinaski listen to all the audio from that corridor?

 
 That's neither: A satisfactory answer a good sarcasm or a good meme. I am disappointed. 

 
OT
Did I listen to all the audio? Maybe not. But you surely can point out one where Oswald says he was out in front of "that building" during the shooting ... as  far as I remember Oswald don't even said it during the famous midnight-press conference ... again: How dumb is Oswald in your Prayerman-scenario?