Lance P is 1000% certain

Lance @the 13 inch head emporium wrote:(I noticed on the ROKC site that Prayer Man is still the rage. Greg Parker is sure the Lone Nut hypothesis will "go poof" when access is gained to the original Wiegman and Darnell films. I'm pretty much 1000% percent confident it's Prayer Man that will go poof, but if I'm wrong I will instantly join the ranks of CTers I now regard as nutty.)

Lance, you are welcome to come here and explain your impossibly high certainty. 

I agree with probably more than half of your other assertions. I have a whole forum dedicated to clearing the decks of all the dross produced by every side of the case.

Fact is, I may have joined you as nutter, if not for my 99.9% certainty that the figure in question is Oswald and that the associated evidence also points to a frame in place by Dallas police - now infamous for the number of innocent people they have locked up over the many decades of the Wade/Fritz/Decker eras.

So watcha waiting for?

Just to point out PM has gained acceptance as a legitimate point of contention by all sides these days. There were a goodly number of years when both sides would either obfuscate with references to the Altgens/Billy Lovelady photo or with utter silence refusing to even acknowledge the matter.

Today we have a lawsuit to obtain the films and LN'rs admitting that if PM is Oswald, then everything goes poof. It's progress.

Vive la difference!!

While Lance can come across as reasonably coherent and intelligent at times,  exposing the worst excesses of conspiratocracy as the brightly polished iron pyrite it undoubtedly is, far too often he makes himself look almost as ridiculous..

Like DR Neiderhut ( Harvard Medical School class of 83 , ya dig?) endlessly boasting about his intellectual accomplishments,  that only , in a Gilbridian twist of irony,  further underlines his crushing mediocrity,  he just makes himself look ridiculous,  and faintly pathetic. 

Mainstream conspiracy research ( and I use the word in the loosest possible sense) especially the type of necrotic quasi Manichesn tripe pimped by the vast majority of our cranially enhanced chums is a complete and utter waste of time. 

A farce, largely designed and conceived ( imho) as a Trojan Horse to spread jaundiced worldviews and maintain the fractured tribalist mindset..

If its not Trojan Horses then its dead horses...dead horses flogged down dead ends. Clutching desperately at straws, shadows and mirages.....

Yet another fucking 3D survey of Dealey Plaza? Relying upon agenda driven media sluts like Tucker Carlson,  who has absolutely no shame,  who will use ( use being the operative word. Time and time again I'm amazed just how naive and shallow these self proclaimed students of the Deep State are...like a Pavlovian puppy,  tickle their belly and coo the magical " C word" and watch 'em as they sit up and beg)any trick, stoop to any level,  jump on any bandwagon in an attempt to further his toxic political agenda..

Dredging up decades old shite, dressing it up and trying to pass it off as contemporary cutting edge research is not the way forward. Endlessly framing the debate in spurious them and us terminology only perpetuates the sense of division,  and ultimately helplessness. Clowns like those insufferable twats Barnard and Cole. Delivering the pompous lecture-posts , drenched in cliched rhetoric and dire portents,  designed,  no doubt,  to reveal their sophisticated nuanced understanding of Deep State machinations..then giggling like teenagers when some MSM tout pulls a stunt a 1st grade ethics student could se through..

A plague on both their houses..

The 60th anniversary may very well be the last hurrah. 

But,  going on past evidence I'm not holding out much hope. Anniversaries have come and gone, also have brief shining moments,  that with a bit of vision, imagination and unity of purpose could more than probably have been turned into watersheds...

Instead , led by the likes of Fetzer, White and Armstrong , the " research community " was treated to a decades long extravaganza , an in depth anatomically groundbreaking expedition , exploring the darkest recesses of the human digestive system...

If I hadn't discovered ROKC I would have lost interest in the case years ago. I can understand Lance et als viewpoints,  to a certain extent. As i too became thoroughly disillusioned by the vast majority of conspiracy research. Time and time again,  on closer inspection, the most venerated pieces of " CT evidence " crumbled to dust. 

Then there's the unsettling cult like  mentality that permeates. The absolute intolerance for opposing viewpoints. The arrogance , the almost unbelievable self righteousness combined with the equally unbelievable lack of self awareness. 

Both " CTs and LNs" manifest definite quasi religious overtones. Their beliefs are formed despite the evidence. Facts are only of use if they can be used to somehow buttress the worldviews. 

Both sides are just different sides of the same phenomenon. Lance's adolescent posturing is equally as embarrassing as DR Neiderhuts. And equally revelatory. Alas, however instead of dazzling the humble plebs with the aura of intellectual grandeur,  the pair of them only manage to look like a couple of deluded old twats. Almost Fetzerian in their laughable attempts at setting themselves , and their lofty plinths in the Academic Pantheon,  as Authorities to argue from. 

I can sense the faintest twinge of desperation,  the slightest glimmer of self knowledge seeping through the gaudy facade and the exquisitely painted rust...its almost as if the pair of them are trying to convince themselves as much as the hoi polloi. Reassure themselves of their brilliance. 

Both sides ( with rare exceptions) refuse to follow the facts. Facts are subjective. Truth ( as opposed to troof) is relative,  and infinitely malleable. 

It's their beliefs that really matter. 

Lance doesn't think Prayerman isn't Oswald,  instead he BELIEVES  1000%. End of story. At least he has the wit to recognize ( and the honestly to admit) that Prayerman = Game Over. Perhaps the worst most ironic and most certainly the most destructive result after 60 years is the fact that the very real conspiracy which did occur has been obscured ( and practically suffocated) by the gaudy shadows cast by the long limbed conspiracy queens who've strutted and preened,  winking coldly as they murmured their coquettes promises. The aura of dark glamour ( clinging like the stink of cheap perfume to the collars of decades worth of flustered conspiracists) and evil deeds in high places,  helped along by flotillas of fake witnesses flim flammers and falsehoods,  have subverted this case...

Both sides seem happy  enough,  locked in this seemingly never ending folie a deux. It's an absolute and complete waste of time . An obscene perversion of real historical enquiry. 

When new facts emerge beliefs are supposed to change accordingly. Without sounding pretentious or presumptuous the real scholar/ scientist/ historian is in a permanent state of becoming. 

Conspiracy research however has other priorities. It is the FACTS themselves ( if they can't be made to fit ) which are changed( cue the shrill chorus of fakery " its been altered "  or , on the LN side of the picket fence dismissed / ridiculed/ marginalised or simply ignored) that must change. 

The zealot is one who is blind to all except their own specific beliefs. Time and time again ive watched as both sides bumble around,  accusing the other of committing the fallacies etc they themselves are making. 

Lance is blind to everyone's faults apart from his own. Like so many of his ilk his arrogant contemptuous tone cannot quite mask his own obvious doubts and insecurities. He claims his beliefs have changed,  but fundamentally he has not. 

All that matters is that Lance believes them. No doubt he was equally as vociferous and absolutist in his conspiracy theorist days. 

It takes a special kind of fool to be the same fool at 70 as he was at 40. The trappings of foolishness may have changed,  but the fool remains. Unbowed unbending and impervious. 

If the 1st generation prints proved incontrovertibly that LHO wasn't in fact Prayerman I'm pretty damn sure Greg,  Barto and the other core members here would accept it in good grace and move on. ROKC is by no means a one trick pony. The research/ archival work done here is as multi faceted as it is far reaching. 


That's one of the things that sets them apart from the herd. 

Along with their antipathy towards hustlers,  hypocrites and their associates and assorted enablers. 

LNs and CTs? Fuck them all. They deserve each other.

PM is not essential to proving that Oswald was not one of the shooters beyond a reasonable doubt. That no one heard or saw Oswald descending the stairs at the time he would have to have done so, nor using the elevator, the doubts so ably cast on the second floor encounter are enough. PM would make any doubt unreasonable.

I agree to  a certain extent Lanceman. 

Oswald's innocence by no means  hinges solely on the putative identity of the Prayerman figure. 

There's quite literally volumes of exculpatory evidence. 

But Prayerman has the potential to,  metaphorically speaking,  synthesise that proof into one simple  compelling  image. 

That leaves absolutely no room for doubt. 

A solid platform,  built on unshakeable  foundations,  rather than esoteric theorizing. Imho  at least  this case has been almost impossibly over complicated. Becoming both an Aleph and an abyss, the  latter with a surface coated in the seductive gleam from countless tiny mirrored fragments. 

Allowing the unwary seeker to see the reflection of themselves, their own biases and their own preferred villain rather than what is actually there to be seen. 

Once it has been proven without doubt that Oswald couldn't have been up on the 6th floor  and once the frame has been exposed, then,  by working backwards,  utilising a negative template,  it should be possible to definitively identify the real conspirators 

I know I probably have bored you all to tears,  whingeing on about the conspirocrats and their pet theories but,  wrongly or rightly,  imho, many of these theories have done far more damage to this case, almost making it unsolvable,  and  perhaps,  crucially how the case is perceived by the public at large. 

Allowing the  various detractors,  debunkers,  ' skeptics " and disinformation merchants to  characterize the case as a " conspiracy theory " Along with the ancient alien brigade,  flat earhers,  and  most destructive of all,  the  holocaust deniers. 

Look at the way Prayerman ( and the Hosty note) was treated by the lone nutist diehards. The howls of impotence and the gnashing of teeth,  after trying to put ANYONE ( and  I  do quite literally mean anyone) in that corner,  they were forced to trot out the usual stale mouldy old excuses..

As for the response from the CT side of the fence? By and large it's been nothing less than shocking. 

I mean,  is this really the best the so called research community can come up with?

Sarah Stanton?

I promised myself not to waste anymore time on Doyle and Gilbrides " research " Apart from the fact I'm enabling someone who quite clearly needs help,  dragging their shite over here just stinks the place out..

But this latest outbreak of skilled credible research was just beyond the pale.

Footage taken at 2pm, footage that clearly shows a diminutive heavy set grey haired woman in light coloured clothes is actually proof the lady in question was the figure known as Prayerman?

It's an insult to the intelligence.

I can honestly say I have never read so much nonsense and empty verbiage ( and as my friends over on the cranially enhanced forum of ill repute will no doubt tell you,  empty verbiage is something I know quite a bit about!) passed off as " research "

Yet again Gilbride and Doyle ignore stark reality. Soaring off on some utterly meaningless tangent. 

The figure purporting to be Sarah Stanton looks absolutely nothing like the Prayerman figure. 

Hair colour,  girth,  clothing,  plus the fact you can clearly see her breasts,  not forgetting this trifling detail..the photo was taken at 2pm!!!

How in Gods name does a photograph,  taken 1 hour  30 minutes later,  showing a figure who is practically the exact opposite of the Prayerman figure prove she is Prayerman?

It's this type of maddeningly perverse refusal to even acknowledge the obvious that is partly  the reason Doyle and Gilbride are treated as virtual pariahs 

Do they genuinely,  honestly think by repeating the pseudoscientific gibberish Doyle calls his height argument the other problems just evaporate? Is this really the childishly obtuse mentality we are dealing with?

Brian,  I'm sorry your so called evidence has been subjected to credible peer review. You just don't like the results. No one is buying it. Apart the likes of Gilbride and Graves. Who are trying to use it to further their own warped agendas. 

People are nowhere near as stupid as you believe they are( and  you need them to be) while you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are. 

Youve created this elaborate persecution fantasy to explain away your own mistakes and foibles. 

You were banned because you simply cannot behave in a respectful collegiate manner. You seem to think your self declared skills means you are exempt from the rules. That, you and you alone can behave however you like,  rules be damned, and suffer no consequences. 

I'm not doing you any favours. As per usual you will snip a couple of paragraphs from this post and use it as a launching pad for yet another rant.

I don't mean to be unkind Brian but , going on your track record I simply don't believe you have the requisite skill set to perform a  genuine photogrammetical study of the images. You refuse even to acknowledge the huge visual discrepancies between the two images. Relying on the same old guff that has been unanimously rejected across the board. 

Whomever Prayerman is he most certainly isn't Sarah Stanton. Look at the fucking images. 

Yet again I'm drawn into this preposterous charade. You refuse to learn. You expect others to accept your beliefs as universal truths then fly into a tantrum when they don't. 

I replied primarily because I wanted to acknowledge Robert Johnson's kind words. Knowing if I didn't you would probably try to twist them. I have never once claimed to be a researcher. Whatever meagre talents I may or may not possess do not include the patience,  aptitude and perseverance that any genuinely gifted researcher has to have. 

However I do have eyes to see. For you and Gilbride to persist with this ridiculous pantomime. Trying to pass off your half assed guesses,  outright deceit and pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo as research really and truly is a disgrace. 

Gilbride needs to take a long hard look at himself. The slanderous remarks and accusations directed at Sean Murphy were simply beneath contempt. 

As I wrote in another post your ' research methodology " is almost identical to Ralph Cinques. Simply ignore the overwhelming evidence which disproved your claim and cycle through a shopping list of long debunked fantasy bullshit. 

Davidson's so called woman's face was a complete travesty ( someone had obviously tampered with it and I don't for a moment think it was Chris. I profoundly disagree with him, in fact I think he's wasting his talent chasing chimeras but he has integrity)  The result doesn't look remotely human. Its just a blurry pixelated mess. You've some nerve trying to pass something like that off. The buttons were a wind up. And as for all the other exotic paraphernalia? The result of an over active imagination and/ or wishful thinking. 

What you and Gilbride are trying to do is the equivalent of photographic alchemy. You're trying to turn base metal ( Sarah Stanton) into gold( Prayerman)

What ever happened to all the  other the " proof" you claimed to have? Greg " practically agreeing Stanton is Prayerman " Have you no sense of decency? Telling bare faced lies about someone's work in a pathetic attempt at points scoring?

Brian,  ultimately I'm doing you no favours by replying. Prolonging this ridiculous farce. Gilbride coming down from his compound,  high on the slopes of Mount Sinai to spread more of his mean spirited vitriolic claptrap. 

You don't seem to realise how foolish you are making yourself look. Denying stark reality. Carrying on as if your height argument suddenly renders all the other insurmountable problems moot. 

Where Sarah Stanton was standing at 2pm has fuck all to do where she may or may not have been standing 90 minutes earlier. Worst of all to try and pretend the two images look even remotely similar...it really and truly is an insult to the intelligence. 

You are one of the very last people who should be accusing anyone of hypocrisy. Abusing James Gordon and the 13 inch head forum in the most militant terms, not to mention the continuing disparaging references to this forum....while at the very same time trying desperately to wriggle and insinuate your way back. 

You were banned 7 fucking years ago. So what? Grow up and get over it. You seem to harbour the absurd delusion that the Ed forum is some kind of academic venue ( trust me Brian your antics and carry on wouldn't be tolerated for one millisecond on any remotely credible academic forum.) Its a fucking debate forum. End of story 

You were wrong about Prayerman? So what? Everyone is wrong from time to time. The trick is learning from your mistakes. 

But I don't seem to be learning from mine. Once again I'm wasting my time , and everyone else's  with this spurious rubbish..

I honestly can't believe you actually tried passing this off as proof. 

Research to you is grabbing onto any straw, regardless of how flimsy,  and trying to twist it into supporting your chosen fantasy. 

As for Gilbride? His " research " may very possibly be worse than yours. Not to mention his reprehensible behaviour and deeply offensive remarks. 

You two should take a long hard look at yourselves. Your research is ignored because it is pure junk. I'm sorry Brian but that's the truth. I don't think you even understand what real research actually entails. 

Anyway apologies to my fellow ROKCers and to any lurkers for derailing the thread, and dragging this junk over here. It just really pisses me off watching that pair flailing around,  trying desperately to prop up their disintegrating fantasies.  Regardless of the cost. Imho junk like this reflects badly on us all.

Alex, stop licking batteries!

In the last few months Doyle has lost his mother and his house. His sole concern is his ban from the EF.
Did you know you can see Mom's headstone from space?....it's an enormous rant about British Bastards, troll punks, Aussie evidence hackers and paint sniffers. Brian used his etch-a-sketch to make an image of Mom for the stone ...which has left lots of people wondering why there is a 6000ft rant, which ends with the image of Fred Truman.

You're absolutely right of course Steely. 

It's me who needs my head examining trying to engage with Brian. He can't help carrying on the way he does. 

It's the attention he craves. 

Brian,  here's a revolutionary idea. If you claim it's so easy why don't YOU go ahead and superimpose the photos. Rather than demanding other people do it?

After all you are the skilled credible researcher,  are you not? Who has out argued the majority to such an extent they've had to orchestrate a wide ranging multi forum conspiracy to prevent your correct evidence from solving the JFKA, and Armstrong knows what else. 

Why in the name of God would I, or any other rational thinking individual waste their time trying to superimpose a photo of a 300lb plus grey haired woman, dressed  in light  coloured  clothes on top of a slim male in a dark coloured shirt with a dark visibly receding hairline?

I'm not disputing the fact Sarah Stanton measured 5ft 2 or 4 inches. I'm saying quite categorically that the two images don't look remotely similar. 

As for your so called height argument? OK, since you're so enamored with peer review provide your peers with the data you used and describe, in detail,  the methodology employed to react your conclusions. 

Surely you understand the integral part falsification plays in the academic peer review process?

I've got a nagging suspicion your height analysis involved you squinting at your computer monitor and relying upon your infamous self proclaimed skills. Incidentally stop trying to associate me with Stancak and his work. He seems like a decent enough sort, and I don't doubt his sincerity,  but in this particular occasion I happen to agree with you. His graphics are distinctly underwhelming. To say the least. But using him as your go to strawman,  all round whipping boy is bullshit. Just because he's wrong doesn't automatically mean you are right. 

If you think accusing someone,  with not a shred of reliable evidence,  on a public platform of having alcohol abuse issues is the action of a gentleman, likewise his nauseating hypocrisy ,then I have nothing more to say to you. 

Gilbride is a reprehensible talentless pissant who blames the world for his own staggering ineptitude. 

His book was one of the most embarrassing  pieces of junk I have ever had the misfortune of reading. If you want to continue wiping his ass then please,  be by guest. And if your idea of a coherent actionable real world conspiracy involves a gaggle of minimum wage warehouse employees,  a bevy of doppelgangers and little green men from Zeta Reticuli then go right ahead. 

In fact if I had any say in the matter you'd be getting your head measured for a 13 inch hat right away.  You'd fit right in amongst the Hickeyites,  the ideologues,  the neophyte,  the conspirocrats and their faithful flock,  not to mention ole Pete from the OIC, and  Professor Sanford,  moderator extraordinaire 
Here's your big opportunity Brian,  show us your much vaunted skills. 

Incidentally YOU made the claim about Greg! It's not up to him to prove ( or in this case) DISprove your irresponsible allegations. The quote is on your Prayerwoman page,  you say? Then it'll be a piece of piss to provide a link or a screenshot. 

Against my own better judgement ive yet again tried to engage you. Making myself look like an utter twat in the process. Trying to reason with you is the forum equivalent of wise old King Cnut proving he wasn't all powerful. 

The tide always comes back in and you can be relied upon to launch into a self aggrandising word salad. 

Brian,  researchers who garner respect and who are actually listened to and respected go out and do the work. They let their work do the talking. Neither Greg nor Barto,  for example are known to suffer fools and can be quite outspoken. But , yet, even the people who have butted horns with them don't dispute their abilities. 

All you do , apart from whining about being banned,  is tell people what a great skilled credible researcher you are. You demand and order people around,  as if they are serfs or your lowly minions  while you sit back and pass judgement.

Never mind expecting other people to do it,  get off your fucking arse and do the work yourself. If it's so easy and you're so sure of the result I would think its a no brainer. 

With characters like you its always someone else's fault.  James Gordon,  Greg, Barto,  troll punks,  British bastards etc etc. You persist with this charade. Deluding yourself , if only it wasn't for James Gordon I would be hailed as the greatest researcher ever...

I'm sorry Brian you just don't have what it takes. The ability,  the maturity,  and the less said about your  interpersonal skills the better. 

Your research is ignored because its junk. Trying to pass off a 300lb plus grey haired woman as Prayerman is nothing less than laughable. 

As usual I'm just wasting my fucking time. 

You run around the internet claiming to be this wonderful researcher, who has done all this groundbreaking work. OK then,  prove it. Prove me wrong. Transpose the photos,  post the data and the step by step method you used to reach your height analysis. If Greg practically admitted Prayerman is Sarah Stanton on your own FB page you should have no problem providing the appropriate link. 

YOU claim to be the skilled credible researcher,  go ahead and prove it. 

It's great to see you posting again Steely. I hope all is well and please accept avery happy ( if belated) birthday greetings. I hope you remembered the eminent Reverend Kiki Gilbrides sermonising about the dangers of ethanol imbibing. Stick to the non drip emulsion. After half a litre of Duluxs new line of Fezzo and Gaal inspired multi coloured paint you are guaranteed to see rainbows AND UFOs...

I met Fred Trueman once when I was playing for my school's cricket team. We were playing a certain boarding school of ill repute and he just happened to be there, giving a speech at  some charity luncheon in the pavilion. He was more than just a little half cut and afterwards he insisted on bowling a few balls in the nets. He must have been getting on a bit, and he was more than just a tad rotund and out of shape too, plus the fact he never took his pipe out of his mouth while he was bowling,  but he was still pretty fucking fast. 

The old bastard slipped in a bouncer or two,  if I remember correctly,  I  wouldn't be surprised,  after all his views on public schools were well known and hardly complimentary!! I have a clear recollection of someone shouting " Did you ever see Raquel Welshs tits?" ( his daughter was married to her son )..
I don't think he head,  or else he didn't answer..

Have you had the chance to review this latest outbreak of skilled credible research? It's quite something!! 

I think you and Stan might well have been onto something with your Little Big Horn theory. However I think it's in need of some fine tuning. In light of recent developments 

Dickie G and our Brian's breakthrough research has pretty much convinced me that Sarah Stanton was in fact a Skinwalker type shapeshifter. 

P.S Brian your gift for unintentional irony almost matches your mastery of unintentional humour. If anyone qualifies for as a fringe figure then you have to look no further than the mirror on your wall. I'm not the one who has been running around for the best part of a decade making all sorts of extravagant claims,  setting myself up as the doyen of assassination researchers. Yes, I think the 13 inch head forum  has, with notable exceptions,  degenerated into self parody,  bu6, I'm not talking out both sides of my mouth,  trying to wheedle my way back in, or browbeat others to act as my proxy. Brian,  all you do is talk. Lecture,  hector,  browbeat,  demand,  insult, boast,  confabulate and obfuscate. You and Gilbride are like the Ghosts of Snakeoil past, appearing every time the subject of Prayerman is raised,  attempting to derail and trivialise the subject. By the way what ever happened to the Irish mafia don Dickie G was going to contact?

The DGBD's are a coalition of  OCD driven attention seekers with an irrepressible desire to sow chaos. They don't care how it makes them look or how everyone else reacts. In fact, they feed on any and all reactions they see, be they bans, critiques, or any form of condemnation. It's the spectacle that they imagine themselves to be at the center of that is their motivator. If they said anything that everyone might agree with, then that would not satisfy the special form of self gratification that they are addicted to. Let them make their noise. In terms of making progress on the case, they are truly irrelevant.

Alex, this is not a criticism of you. Bash them over the head all you want. They certainly deserve it. Just remember about wrestling a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.

The DGBDs I love it Jake!!

I feel angry ( and embarrassed) at myself for enabling their pet delusions. It's a total waste of time and effort. Trying to reason with characters who seem hellbent on subverting and/ or trivialising the subject. Turning it into a vehicle for some kind of twisted ego gratification and revenge fantasy. 

But , honestly Jake, this latest outbreak of skilled credible research was just beyond the fucking pale. It was an insult to the intelligence. 

Trying to pass off footage of a diminutive 300lb grey haired woman with light coloured clothes and clearly discernable cleavage as Prayerman? As if some gobbledegook about height analysis suddenly negates all this?

Plus it's the attitude,  especially Gilbride. The holier than thou posturing,  not to mention the scurrilous,  totally  reprehensible attempt at slander. 

What sort of mean spirited spiteful cunt carries on like that? Then to come down from the mountainside to berate the errant flock of sin ( and ethanol) blinded researcher, as if he's some wise benevolent patriarch,  respected by all...instead of some jumped up pissant with severe delusions of grandeur and a hack theory to peddle..

I know I shouldn't let it bother me. I know I shouldn't waste my own,  and everyone else's time,  but reading through this fantastical guff, richly seasoned with delusion and outright deceit,  not to mention the faux condescending tone.....

Call me a nutty unskilled troll punk,  a British bastard or a plain old sycophant but I genuinely believe the core members here have meticulously unearthed potentially case breaking evidence. I may not agree with everything,  irrespective of  that I think the forum has done some pretty remarkable work. Hard work. 

I know Brian has severe issues that he refuses to acknowledge much less confront. He wears out any sympathy/ good intentions as soon as he hits the keyboard. 

Maybe I've just got a serious dose of them DGBDs( symptoms include being chased by  swarms of giant handbag wielding 300lb invisible titties) but their ridiculous circus has the potential ( certainly in unscrupulous hands) to trivialise and marginalize a potentially paradigm busting breakthrough. 

Guilt by association and all that. Cinque and the Doorman scam was bad enough but arguably this is even worse!! Just look at the images. How can anyone possibly think they are the same person??

" Ok, Mr Wilson,  its time for your medication then there's just enough time for a quick nap before the DGBD Anonymous meeting tonight "

" Thank you nurse Stanton "

Worth remembering the 3 percentile researcher corrected larrytrotterimage about the gender of the figure. Reminding him is usually a sure way to light the blue touch paper.
Right, Brian?

Credible researchers will see how Doyle has publicly avoided answering this evidence of his previous accuracy. Instead, he seeks comfort in Gilbride's paint stained ass crack, ready to load another rodent. On a level playing field 95% of the posters. on any forum, would agree that Brian is too stupid to realize he's stupid.

Greg, do you have a combine harvester? Lance needs some strawmen cutting...

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28628-prayer-man-for-greg-parker/

steely_dan wrote:Greg, do you have a combine harvester?  Lance needs some strawmen cutting...

Unfortunately mines got a bent Johnson Rod from ploughing too many rough fields, but this youtube includes a handy guide on how to find a good price on one.

Jonathan,  usually I agree with pretty much everything you say. Along with Jeremy,  RC D and a couple of others,  you provide a much needed rational counterpoint to the conspiratorial excesses of our less discerning friends. 

But , on this particular occasion I have to correct a slight misapprehension. 

I and the other core members here( apologies if I sound as if I am being presumptuous) couldn't care less if Doyle ( apart from some good natured badinage. Surely you can tell the difference between satirical skits and parodies with a nod and a wink to reality and manic tirades full of slanderous allegations and outright falsehoods?) only THOUGHT Sarah Stanton was Prayerman. 

The problem I , and the other core members ( apologies as above) have is the on going 7 year + campaign he's attempting to wage. Running around the internet,  vandalising forum after forum,  blog after blog,  until the inevitable banning,  with his ridiculous made up bullshit. Claiming to have PROVED Prayerman is Sarah Stanton. 

Not only that,  he persistently twists, misrepresents and outright lies about other people's work. How would you react if someone had been waging a hapless guerrilla campaign ( Don Quickcoat and Sancho Panzer in the Peninsular War) for nigh on a decade? Trying to spread lies and outright fabrications about your work? Making up all sorts of ridiculous nonsense?

I'm no angel I admit but I only attempt to satirise what other people have actually said,  or actually believe. I make absolutely no apologies for attempting to criticize,  satirise and parody characters like Don Jeffries,  Richard Gilbride and the Harvey and Lee brigade. Imho nothing I,  or anyone here could write could ever hope to be as vulgar and offensive as the " theories " they persistently tout.

The 13 inch headite cognoscenti love wringing their hands and moaning about how the term " conspiracy theorist" has been transformed ( dare I say weaponized) into an inflammatory snarl word. While,  at the same time certain members seem absolutely determined to, not only live up to,  but actually exceed,  and " out tin foil hat " if you will, the very worst media stereotypes. 

Likewise Mr Blackmon I take exception ( and am somewhat offended ) by your remark. 

Hate is a  very strong word. With incredibly dark undertones and with  all manner of highly incendiary subtexts. Not to mention connotations. I admit I may have overstepped the mark on occasion. Recognising this I apologised sincerely to Brian. Two wrongs most certainly do not make a right,  and I don't want to lower myself to the " he said  she said " mentality. But, I'd argue,  in the strongest possible terms,  that there is a huge difference between good natured satire and obvious parody and smears, baseless accusations,  blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations and threats of legal action etc. Brian is a poor lost soul. I genuinely empathise with his predicament. However he refuses to acknowledge much less address his problems. I'm only human. When I read some of the stuff they attempt to pass off as " research " especially when it's couched in Gilbrides patented fire and brimstone hypocrisy ( imho accusing someone of having alcohol abuse issues,  the way he did, on a public platform is pretty much as low as you can get. Well, maybe not quite. Attempting to gloat about someone's life threatening health issues might run it pretty damn close) and chock full of patently ridiculous fabrications ( if you haven't already I suggest you look at the images in question. Attempting to pass them off as the same person is an insult to the intelligence) I respond 

I'm pretty fucking certain no one here hates Brian Doyle. 

Personally, I feel incredibly sorry for him. Ive said so many times. Actually apologising for some of my earlier attempts at humour that perhaps strayed a little bit too far over the line. 

Seemingly Brian has made it his lifes work to vilify this forum: both the individual members and the work done here. I know you and your fellow Ed forum members have far more important topics to discuss but I happen to think the Prayerman footage, and the accompanying evidence represents the last realistic chance of making any sort of breakthrough. 

Your forums maddeningly archaic,  not to mention hypocritical views on " etiquette " ( spread as much fucking bullshit as you like but remember to say " please " ) and it's myopic idiocy is nothing but a regressive influence. Further deepening the sense of polarisation and trivialising the subject to the point of absurdity. Allowing all manner of bigots, zealots and outright cranks free reign. 

The difference between this forum and the palace of the 13 inch heads is there is a strict demarcation between the humour and the actual research. 

In fact that's wrong. You lot produce fuck all new research,  you've turned windy gasbagging and empty pontificating into a fucking art form. 

Footage exists that appears to show the accused assassin standing in the shadows of the TSBD doorway around the approximate time the shots were fired. Proving once and for all he was innocent. 

Of course there's mountains of other exculpatory evidence. But , in the intervening years no one individual piece has been able to synthesise it so strikingly and definitively. 

Over the past few years researchers ( I use the term loosely) from all across the spectrum; from purveyors of the zaniest whackiest CT crud all the way to militant lone nutists,  have tried to marginalize and downplay the potential significance. 

Trying first to squeeze anyone into that shadow haunted corner, and,  failing that,  falling back to the hoary old stand bys: Prayersmudge,  or like fearless warriors and waterpistol slingers like the odious buffoon 6 gun Stevie Roe, feign mocking indignation. Secure in the knowledge that his venerable institutions would never lie to him. And he, and he alone ( alongside undiscovered comedy geniuses like the equally repulsive Bill Brown and the redoubtable DVP) knows the truth. And the troof for that matter. So help me God

For the life of me I can't understand why everyone tangentially associated  with, or   remotely interested in this case isn't getting behind the effort to get the 1st generation prints released. 

If it isn't Oswald,  so what? 

What is there to lose that hasn't been lost already. 

Unless you prefer to keep on keeping on...spinning your wheels and musing thoughtfully as some ardent Hickeyist defaces the place with more spurious nonsense,  or nodding excitedly as some duplicitous media whore tries to subvert the assassination to fit his own malign agenda or some half baked libertarian fuckwit unfurls yet another fucking 3D scan of Dealey Plaza...

Firstly, thanks to Roger for covering so much. I'll add what I can.

Secondly, apologies to Lance. Had forgotten I had called you out previously. But then, you keep invoking the devil - and I keep all his details. I am going to provide some of those details for you to parse through that fine legal mind.

This should be the issue that unites everyone - at least until the films are studied.  The problem is that few - very few on either side are truly willing to change their minds no matter what they claim and no matter what evidence is in front of them. I still hold out hope that you actually do mean it. 

Here is a fair swag of the evidence in one handy place, including the section of Hosty's notes that very clearly sets out the alibi. https://pinboard.opera.com/view/297798f3-a48a-47a8-8d2a-d83cb70f45c5

Jarman and Norman
You can set Shelley aside if you want, since he failed to corroborate Oswald. What is not included in  the link is that at about 12:25, Junior Jarman and Shorty Norman reentered the building from the rear loading dock. The time stamp is based on them hearing a police radio report at that time as they walked around the back.  Oswald told his interrogators that he saw them coming in. He could not have seen them from the 6th floor - or where idiots on "my" side have him - the 2nd floor lunch room. The one place he could see this from was the laborer's break room on the 1st floor.

Now you claim that Oswald lied to interrogators - and in this case, Fritz in his report said 

"in talking with him further about his location at the time the President was killed, he said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him. One of them was called "Junior" and the other one was a little short man whose name he did not know." 

While in FBI Agent Bookhout's report on the same interview, we find.

"Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called "Junior" and the other was short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."

Bookhout's is the more accurate - except for one detail. It is impossible to "walk through" the break room. There is only one door in and it's the same door out. The room Oswald saw them walk through was the open area of the floor. 

Fritz and the practice of verballing
Fritz changed what Oswald said for one reason and one reason  only - so that he could ask Jarman and Norman if they ate lunch with Oswald, knowing they would truthfully answer "no" - and thereby put another knife into Oswald's alibi. 

There is a practice within police forces throughout the world that still persists to this day, though it may be known under different names in different countries. Here it is called "verballing". It refers to police putting words into the mouths of suspects (and sometimes witnesses) to boost their case

A recent example here. A man who phoned his local police station to file a complaint about something involving an officer at another station, was eventually arrested and held on terrorist charges for several weeks after the officer he spoke to claimed he had made threats to kill the officer he was complaining about. When he finally got his chance to give his side in court, it was immediately thrown out with the officer he complained to now under internal investigation. See, the complainant had recorded the conversation... no threats at all had been made.

With Oswald, you will note that none of the reports were typed prior to Oswald's death. Meaning they could never be disputed. That was because what you see as lies, were in fact, police "verballing" him. In short, they have Oswald changing his story to help them put the noose around his own neck. 

Fritz's clearance rates on murder are impossible
Let's look at Fritz. He was[url=https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=129778#relPageId=3&search=fritz_and 666] lauded by the Dallas Morning News [/url]for solving 656 out of 666 murders in a 10 year period. That is a 98% clearance rate - without any modern forensics. The best any jurisdiction does WITH the latest technology is around 60%

Fritz fails the truth test during testimony
One of the things police are trained for is to look for psychological signs of lying. One such sign is said to be stuttering where the person does not stutter in normal circumstances.

Fritz stutters like a drunken rooster crowing at dawn - but in one area of his testimony and one area only. That area is the hotly disputed Truly/Baker/Oswald 2nd floor lunchroom encounter.

Here it is for your entertainment.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left."

Note that he relatively fine - until he has to start talking about Baker

Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.

WTF was there to investigate? Baker said in his initial statement that it was the 3rd or 4th floor stairs. There was no "investigation". There was a conference between the FBI, Roy Truly and perhaps Fritz and/or others to come up with a viable alternative "encounter". There are a number of reasons they went with 2nd floor lunch-room, but I do not want to drag this on too long. Ask and I'll tell.

No screaming from the rafters about being on the steps?
Just in addition to what Roger said. 

There is a report in his Youth House file that states in part, "He does not encourage conversation, nor does he participate in conversation. He does not communicate with the supervisors unless he is asked a direct question, then his answer is very terse."

The same report says he could be found every night sitting by himself in the corner near the window. He was left alone there. Another lifelong habit. Youth house. In the Marines, he can be seen in that photo of John Wayne... not with the other men sitting with Wayne, but way in the background in a doorway... and probably late arriving. November 22, 1963. Out late to watch the parade, standing in the back corner,, un-noticed as he preferred it.

These reports culminated in a diagnosis of "personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features and passive aggressive tendencies."

That is, according to Hartogs, he fell within a group of personality disorders that are deeply ingrained and resistant to change, and predisposed to develop into psychosis under stress.

But the diagnosis that probably would have been made had it been recognized in the US at the time, was Asperger's Syndrome.. Oswald certainly never developed any psychosis, though his personality remained as noted at Youth House. Those with Asperger's often react in the opposite way to the "norm". Put some of them under huge stress and they handle it like champions.  But if for example, they are used to having certain things done, and they are not done, they can totally loss the plot. 

As Marina explains in her testimony:

Mrs. OSWALD. Generally he was---usually he was quiet as he always was. He used to help me. And he was a good family man. Sometimes, apparently with out reason, at least I did not know reasons, if any existed, he became quite a stranger. At such times it was impossible to ask him anything. He simply kept to himself. He was irritated by trifles.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall any of the trifles that irritated him, so as to help us to know the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. It is hard to remember any such trifling occurrences, sometimes such a small thing as, for example, dinner being five minutes late, and I do mean five minutes--it is not that I am exaggerating---he would be very angry. Or if there were no butter on the table, because he hadn't brought it from the icebox, he would with great indignation ask, "Why is there no butter?" And at the same time if I had put the butter on the table he wouldn't have touched it. This is foolishness, of course. A normal person doesn't get irritated by things like that.

Everything she says there is typical of Asperger's/OCD/Autism Spectrum Disorder. None of which existed in the US psych manuals of the early 1950s.

Then when you contrast that behavior with the cool as a cucumber man under interogation for assassinating the most powerful man on earth and it becomes a slam dunk.

And all that is by way of explaining why he never screamed his alibi from the rafters, He had reporters shouting questions at him. He did what he had always done. Answeed specific questions with terse replies. That is the way his brain was wired. 

And I will add that those with Asperger' s find it very difficult to lie. Unlike cops who lie routinely to trick confessions out of people. And as shown, also routinely lie about what suspects say. 

Designated patsy is not the same thing as marrionette puppet
Though I am not saying the CIA was involved, I will use them as an example. The CIA in Helsinki utilized a REDSKIN agent (ie a student traveller used to legally obtain intel from observation) in a honeytrap against the Soviet Consul Golub who issued the entry visas to the Soviet Union. They wanted to turn him into an agent-in-place, but gave up when they realized he was a "true believer". Instead, they got him to issue quickie visas to US citizens --- just prior to Oswald arriving... 

But the point I wanted to make was this: in using this young lady, they gave her no instructions at all on what to say to him, or how to act. They felt sure that Golub would recognise such instruction and the whole thing would be exposed. They were quite happy to let her wing it.

Not quite the same, but similar As Roger said, they did not want Oswald getting suspicious by trying to pull his strings. If he had taken the day off, you can bet they had backup patsies in mind. Molina, Frazier or any of the Black workers would do.

He was out the front? Doesn't matter. His role changes from shooter to look out, since they were originally going for a communist conspiracy. His whereabouts only became an issue after he became a "lone nut".   

You say, "I’m sympathetic to Prayer Man enthusiasts because it will indeed be a flat-out Lone Nut-killer if it is Oswald." And I appreciate that and take you at your word until if/when your words/actions show I can no longer do that.

The above post should be mandatory reading for JFK assassination 101 classes. 

Steering clear of theorizing,  just sticking to the evidentiary records sans any needless spin or editoralising. 

Roger did indeed do a sterling job,  articulating the main points. And kudos too to Lance for having the wit, and the honesty to recognize the importance of the issue. 

The above post epitomizes the ROKC approach. The importance of primary documentation and the willingness not to be straitjacketed by sacred cows or shibboleths. The above scenario has the seamless ring of truth,  without all the baffling contradictions and implausibilites. 

I really cannot understand why everyone isn't getting behind this. After nigh on 60 years this really could be the equivalent of Alexander the Greats sword slicing through the Gordian ( Lord Gordo ian?) knot

In a society where attention spans are measured by the millisecond,  rattling around like peanut M and Ms before melting in the mouth of some ritalin crazed kid, the Prayerman footage has the potential to elegantly and definitively synthesize the vast accumulation of other exculpatory evidence. 

Ending decades of increasing spurious wheel spinning and faux debate

Greg said:

"Not quite the same, but similar As Roger said, they did not want Oswald getting suspicious by trying to pull his strings. If he had taken the day off, you can bet they had backup patsies in mind. Molina, Frazier or any of the Black workers would do.

He was out the front? Doesn't matter. His role changes from shooter to look out, since they were originally going for a communist conspiracy. His whereabouts only became an issue after he became a "lone nut". "


This jumped out at me.  Who do you think "they" are who had the ability to concoct such a multifaceted plan and make changes on the fly?   Doesn't this thought lead you inexorably toward the *organization* that at the time had more than 10 years experience executing similar coups around the world?


The organization that realized that JFK now stood in the way of everything they were doing and hoped to achieve?


None of the other actors posited to be "behind" the JFKA had this ability and motive.  Only the CIA with its collaborators in the military, within the executive branch, and on Wall Street had it.


Greg, do you want me to copy your answer to the thread on EF since Lance was directing his post at you?

If Oswald had not showed up for work that day, would Molina, Frazier or the black workers behaved any differently such that they would not have been where they were during the assassination which is corroborated by photographic evidence? A case could be made for Frazier since he supposedly brought Oswald into work. Fritz did lean on Frazier even though they had Oswald in custody.

Just enjoying hyperbolic LN'r responses in the Head. They can't address the evidence that shows Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor sans PM without resorting to rash assumptions. They think such evidence is mere rationalization for PM being Oswald and therefore dismiss it on the basis that PM is not identified. They have it backwards of course, PM as Oswald is possible corroboration of the vicinity where Oswald actually was given that the independent evidence showing Oswald was not on the sixth floor already proves his innocence. So we get he can't be on the steps because he was shooting on the sixth. Seriously?

I wonder what the timeline on the lawsuit is these days. The films of course are the only thing that will ever put this to rest.

Do we know if Sarah Stanton brought her handbag with her when she watched the parade? If so, and from looking at stills from Weigman, it appears that many women did bring their handbags. PM is either holding something in his arms or he is crossing his chest. A woman with a handbag would not cross their chest like that. It is far more comfortable to let it hang from the side, particularly if it’s a large, heavy handbag. That strongly suggests that PM is NOT a woman.

If PM is holding a drink, than it is not Sarah Stanton as there is no indication she had purchased a drink at the time.

If PM is not holding a drink or other object and has his hands across his chest, the body language suggests he is erecting a barrier either out of defensiveness, shyness or because he does not feel part of the group. 

While a random stranger might feel not part of the group, it’s very unlikely a stranger would have picked that location to watch the parade and no one reported seeing any strangers in the building that day.

Roger Odisio wrote:Greg said:

"Not quite the same, but similar As Roger said, they did not want Oswald getting suspicious by trying to pull his strings. If he had taken the day off, you can bet they had backup patsies in mind. Molina, Frazier or any of the Black workers would do.

He was out the front? Doesn't matter. His role changes from shooter to look out, since they were originally going for a communist conspiracy. His whereabouts only became an issue after he became a "lone nut". "


This jumped out at me.  Who do you think "they" are who had the ability to concoct such a multifaceted plan and make changes on the fly?   Doesn't this thought lead you inexorably toward the *organization* that at the time had more than 10 years experience executing similar coups around the world?


The organization that realized that JFK now stood in the way of everything they were doing and hoped to achieve?


None of the other actors posited to be "behind" the JFKA had this ability and motive.  Only the CIA with its collaborators in the military, within the executive branch, and on Wall Street had it.

On the contrary, the CIA were amateurs at framing patsies compared to Dallas police - who really didn't even need to be drafted before the event to play their part. The alphabet agencies would tag along to save face that the patsy was one of their own bottom-feeders. 

You also need to be able to connect the CIA to the inside man in that building - Roy Sansom Truly. 

Greg, do you want me to copy your answer to the thread on EF since Lance was directing his post at you?

I wouldn't ask you to do that. It fuels belief by the crazies that you're all here just to do my bidding.  I'll leave it as your call and thank you again, although I think you nailed it with him - that he is hedging.

lanceman wrote:If Oswald had not showed up for work that day, would Molina, Frazier or the black workers behaved any differently such that they would not have been where they were during the assassination which is corroborated by photographic evidence? A case could be made for Frazier since he supposedly brought Oswald into work. Fritz did lean on Frazier even though they had Oswald in custody.

If Molina was the replacement patsy, JFK makes it to the Trade Mart and is poisoned by s asteak served by Molina's wife.

The three amigos we already know, were easily manipulated and were on the floor where some reports had the shots coming from.

Piper's alibi for lunch was as dodgy as all fuck and he had the opportunity to do things sight unseen as he stayed at work a couple of hours after everyone had left.

Dougherty to had a problematic alibi as is, was probably also easily manipulated and started work about an hor before anyone else.

Let's also throw in Givens - a Black man with a reord. 

And as a wild card entry, Russell McLarry, a student who was arrested and charged after the assassinatuon, as having made threats to shoot JFK from a building during the parade. He was eventually found not guilty with his story of it being a joke, winning the day.

Lance P wrote:I have given reasons why, logically, I believe it is exceedingly unlikely the image is Oswald. Nothing more and nothing less.

No you haven't, Lance. "Belief" is not logic. 

Logically, to determine the facts about anything, you examine all relevant data - which is what I have done.

Your method seems to be akin to looking at the sun and logically proclaiming it is a hot ball in the sky which revolves around the earth and may or may not be made of lava or sulphur. 

How have we ever evolved! 

Things that I have logically taken into account, which you refuse to.

The Dallas police record - in particular that of Fritz whose record for breaking cases was lirterally impossible without framing innocent people (again - 656 of 666  cases "solved" over 10 years).

Oswald's diagnosis from Youth Houes - which regardless of whether it was correct or I am correct and he was actually on the Autism spectrum - it was a lifelong condition with no viable treatment. Either condition has the same outcome - he took questions very literally and gave short sharp answers. 

The fact that, by police training, Fritz was lying about any Oswald encounter with Baker and Truly because he stuttered the whole way through that bullshit story.

I also pointed out his lifelong habit (caused by whatever his true diagnosis was) of seeking to be invisible in crowds by going into dark corners. 

You also refuse to acknowledge the impossibility of his being able to know that Jarman and Norman had re-entered the building had he been on the 6th floor. The one and only place he could have seen that from was the 1st floor. Which is where he placed himself - inside the break room with a perfect view of the loading dock through which they re-entered.

You ignore it all and insist instead that the official version is the "logical" version without testing that version at all.

Blind faith is the only thing that keeps churches, cults and UFO groups going.

ROKC is none of those - unlike the EF and all lone nut forums. 

Exculpatory evidence abounds in this case. But none of it matches the power of a single photo showing Oswald's alibi was no lie. If I am wrong and it is not Oswald, I'll accept it and move on. As I am certain everyone else here will. I am fully prepared for the onslaught that would bring upon me from the conspiratocracy and Lone Nutters alike. 

Like I give a shit about what they think 

Regretably, I have to agree with Roger. You are hedging your bets, maintaining your nutter faith by avoiding LOGICAL areas of inquiry, while saying you will embrace PM in the unlikely (in your opinion) event that it is actually Oswald. 

I guss the faith-based EF is the best place for you. When you're not haunting UFO groups.