Did Garrison Know About Prayer Man?

From Frazier's Testimony at the Shaw trial.

Q: Did you ever see Lee Harvey Oswald during that time that you were on the steps in front of the Texas School Book Depository?
A: No, sir, I did not.

Vinny wrote:From Frazier's Testimony at the Shaw trial.

Q: Did you ever see Lee Harvey Oswald during that time that you were on the steps in front of the Texas School Book Depository?
A: No, sir, I did not.

What would be the expected response of a person who learns he's in a historically significant photo? Wouldn't he be curious about it? Wouldn't he look at it carefully to see if it confirms what he remembers about the event? What if he saw some details he didn't remember? Wouldn't he think long and hard about them to update his thinking? If he saw some details he didn't recall, wouldn't he attempt to try to explain or reconcile them?
 
When I was at the US Naval Nuclear Power school in the early 1970s, there was this kid from Hawaii in my class named Terry who was an avid photographer. He always had his Nikon camera with him, along with an assortment of lenses, and he was always taking pictures. He developed his photos as well.
 
Much later, out of the blue, Terry gives me this pack of very large black & white photos as a gift, about a dozen, from when we were back in San Diego, just starting our training. I was in all the pictures, and while I remember the general details (location, situation, etc.), I don't remember the pictures being taken or the specifics. A few were when I had duty teaching night school for guys needing extra help and some were at a class party outside of town.
 
A few examples:


 
 
Seeing these photos made me rethink a few things. I saw some people I'd forgotten. (One guy I still don't remember to this day, but there he is.) I didn't remember much about the kegger we had in the mountains. Anyway, the pictures were reality and they helped me recall/clarify some things.
 
If I were BWF and I had been telling the truth all along about everything, I would be very curious about the Prayer Man photos when shown them. 



Clearly there's a man standing there, apparently within my field of peripheral vision. Some solid assumptions can be made as to his physical appearance and size. This narrows the range of possibilities. Since others were asking questions about this mystery figure, I would be wracking my brain to try to explain it, to fit it in with everything else I knew. I'd tell others my thought process and my speculations as well. Because I was a (unwitting) player in history and I would have nothing to hide, I would speak freely and openly.
 
If I had nothing to hide, I wouldn't be silent.

Absolutely Stan. Does he really want to blow up his world and that of the official story by speaking of he who shall not be seen on the steps, as being seen on the steps? Hell no. Not one word.

Nice pictures,Stan.Must be bringing back a lot of fond memories.

Good god what else does Frasier know that he isn't speaking about.....

BC_II wrote:Good god what else does Frasier know that he isn't speaking about.....

Maybe about the alleged curtain rods.

To my mind  a great many things. A 19 year old from Huntsville Texas. Knew his rifles too. He lied about key moments from the assassination day. To this day we are still uncertain of his whereabouts post assassination for near on 5 hours....And his sister lied to police about Oswald's alleged paper sack large enough to carry a rifle at around 3.00pm. Frazier has much to tell in my opinion. Both Randle and Frazier's original affidavits taken early evening were torn up and rewritten later that Friday night. Did Frazier try and tell police initially that Oswald was on the steps?

Mick Purdy wrote:Did Frazier try and tell police initially that Oswald was on the steps?

Until proven otherwise, I think he did.

I think that filthy son-of-a-bitch Will Fritz threatened that poor dumb bastard with fire & brimstone if he didn't toe the fucking company line. BWF is a simple guy, not overly intelligent, someone easy to manipulate using sheer force and threats.

I'm sure he's much more involved in this that he's let on, but I'm not sure how willing of a participant he was.

Self preservation perhaps or maybe not. It's difficult to assume anything about Frazier other than he's not telling us the truth. How can he not know who Prayer Man is? After Oswald was shot his alibi had to be removed. Enter the 2nd floor bullshit.

Welcome back Paul!!

He claims that Fritz asked him to sign a confession and when he refused Fritz raised his hand to hit him.However he waited five decades to tell this story and there is no corroboration for it

If it did happen it might explain his fear to some extent as Stan said. In any case he still has the opportunity to come clean one of these days if he wants to. I wonder what reply he will be giving at CAPA to Andrej's 3D model.

Frazier will not be attending CAPA
He also mentioned the Fritz incident on a few occasions this past decade or so.
The problem is that  every time he does an interview things get mixed up.
We have experienced this firsthand recently 2x.

I will go to my box convinced Frazier lied on key issues from that Friday. The drive to work, the parking lot Bullshit, the basement and his lunch, the curtain rod nonsense the sick stepfather and his 5 hour visit, the sack on the back seat of the car, Denying Oswald had his lunch that day, corroborating his sisters version of Oswald carrying the sack over to the house that morning, stating the Prayerman figure looks like Lovelady but could not have been because he remembers he went on down to the railway yard, Knows who was to his left on those steps but says he can't remember who was to his right...and on and on.

Whilst I have nothing in the way of solid evidence to support the idea that the Randle's were complicit along with the Paine's in framing Oswald, It's my belief Frazier is either a witting or unwitting participant who did help nail Oswald. I find it almost inconceivable that he was not involved in some way. But that's obviously just me. Those missing hours after the event, are key for me.

From a keyboard pov I would possibly agree, but I find that BWF was under tremendous pressure that day and the weeks/months/years after. It would look strange, to say the least, if he would come clean all of the sudden. People would declare him crazy, the media interest would be mental and at his age I would give it a miss. Plus there is still not THE image to back it up 100%

And let's not forget from very recent talks I have heard that some of the details from 50 odd years ago are hard to remember in the right order, sure it was a big day, but we look at every nook and cranny many times over many years, whereas these witnesses lived it in THAT moment. Frazier made a colossal mistake during his HSCA interview w Shelley and Lovelady leaving and over the years he has made similar mistakes in videos on YouTube.  
And yes there are things that do not add up from his pov, esp the package. 

Don't forget Oswald was a cop killer on Nov 22, and a JFK killer on the 23rd........

And no Garrison did not have a clue about PM, the only ones that did were Sprague and Bernabei around the same time, I know it was 67/68 and so was the trial, but I reckon the find of the person in the shadow by Bernabei was shortly after the trial.

I really don't know about Frazier. Driving the alleged assassin, the Carcano and then the alibi on the steps? Too much for a 19 year old.
P.S Thanks Barto

The available open source evidence points to Oswald being down in front during the assassination. Anyone can piece this together on his own. We made it very easy for anyone to do. But one must do the modest amount of work required. At a minimum, it takes many hours. How to persuade somebody to do this is a question.
 
Nothing is going to happen until such time public attention becomes focused on this. Attention animates the object of the attention. Leads to critical mass. It's how things become viral.
 
Even if we get a much clearer image of Prayer Man better confirming what we now suspect, it will do little to move the needle until such time it grabs the attention of the public. Although I think this could be the trigger to get things rolling.
 
Why should the public care about "ancient" 55-year old history anyway? How do we sell it? Why is it important? Why should they be interested? Do we tie it to present-day corruption that people can easily relate to? Might this make it more relevant to people today?
 
Just some thoughts.

It's not that the public don't care, Stan. It's more a case of 55 years has passed without a significant breakthrough. I respectfully disagree with you on the point of a clearer scan. That would open this up and bring to the fore the evidence you mention pointing to Oswald being out front like he said he was.
These are also just some thoughts on my behalf.

Stan Dane wrote:Why should the public care about "ancient" 55-year old history anyway? How do we sell it? Why is it important? Why should they be interested? Do we tie it to present-day corruption that people can easily relate to? Might this make it more relevant to people today?
 

We have been watching the X-Files lately and there was one episode in season six ("Three of a Kind") that starts off with one of the Lone Gunmen (John Fitzgerald Byers) reminiscing about JFK and what the world should have been like if he had not been killed.

It might not be much but I think that sort of thing would resonate with a lot of people today, living in this dystopic image of America rather than the hopeful times of the past.

There has to be some way to capture that imagery in presenting the re-framed case.

Not certain how it can be done but I am pretty sure "Me and Lee; the musical" ain't gonna hack it.