"Prayer Man" on the Education Forum

[ianlloyd]

First topic message reminder :

As I am not a member of the EF, I cannot post there but there is an interesting discussion going on there at the moment regarding a figure in the TSBD doorway generally referred to as "Prayer Man" due to the apparent position of his hands, seemingly clasped in front of his chest as if in prayer.
 
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354
 
I recall this person being discussed somewhere many years ago and was referred to as "Prayer Man" pretty much from the outset but I cannot recall where it originated, maybe on Lancer?
 
Anyway, the reason for this post is that, upon looking closely at the various photographs and movie clips presented as part of the discussion, it struck me that his hands don't seem to move from the "prayer" position for what seems to be quite some time. Was he holding something, I wonder? If so, it seems an odd way to hold whatever it was.

[ianlloyd]

Just been looking at the recent photos posted on the EF and a couple of things came to mind:

1. Didn't Jeraldean Reid say that when she saw Oswald walking through the office he was dressed in a white tee shirt?
2. Looking at the photo - Could PM be placing a pair of spectacles into his shirt pocket? May that also explain the bright spot seen earlier in the movie clip - was he removing his spectacles?

[Goban_Saor]

After going through the entire EF thread let me expand on why Oswald as Pm doesn't work for me.

Have you read my post fourth from the bottom of page 1 of this thread posted on 22 Aug 2013 @ 4.18 pm? (I tried copying it here but the text appears garbled when I do so.)

I believe it's clear from the Billy Lovelady WC testimony quoted there that Prayer Man could not be Bill Shelley. Also, the manner in which Joseph Ball questions Lovelady in the extract quoted seems significant as far as the identity of Prayer Man is concerned - he seems to be steering Lovelady away from an 'off-script' revelation that Prayer Man is Oswald.

[GuestGuest]

Have you read my post fourth from the bottom of page 1 of this thread posted on 22 Aug 2013 @ 4.18 pm? (I tried copying it here but the text appears garbled when I do so.)

I believe it's clear from the Billy Lovelady WC testimony quoted there that Prayer Man could not be Bill Shelley. Also, the manner in which Joseph Ball questions Lovelady in the extract quoted seems significant as far as the identity of Prayer Man is concerned - he seems to be steering Lovelady away from an 'off-script' revelation that Prayer Man is Oswald.

Yes I did read your post. Billy Lovelady appears to me,  to be about to name Buell Frazier, based on Frazier's description of being back behind everyone in the shadows. Granted, people seem to have been moving around on the steps based on Lovelady first sitting to eat his lunch and Shelley making reference to him sitting. But as we later see, Lovelady was standing in Altgens, Wiegman and Hughes.

My interpretation is that Ball is simply trying to get a list of names and didn't go back to the point he cut Lovelady off, asking for who was behind him. I could very well be wrong.

But I have to reemphasize that no one has ever stated, to my knowledge that they saw Oswald on the steps during the shooting. In Unger's new Darnell frames in the EF thread, there are several people walking up the steps directly in front of PM because of the crowded nature of the steps and landing and no one ever said Oswald was there. The landing (top step) was only 4 feet deep to the glass door and wall.

[GuestGuest]

Just been looking at the recent photos posted on the EF and a couple of things came to mind:

1. Didn't Jeraldean Reid say that when she saw Oswald walking through the office he was dressed in a white tee shirt?
2. Looking at the photo - Could PM be placing a pair of spectacles into his shirt pocket? May that also explain the bright spot seen earlier in the movie clip - was he removing his spectacles?

1. Yes, she did.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit, first 157 and then 158, and I will ask you if either or both look like they might have been the trousers that you saw him wear or can you tell?
Mrs. REID. I just couldn't be positive about that. I would rather not say, because I just cannot.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen anyone working at the book depository wearing any kind of a shirt or jacket similar to Commission Exhibit 150 or do you know?
Mrs. REID. No; I do not. I have never, so far as I know ever seen that shirt. I have been asked about that shirt before, I have seen it once before but not since all this happened.

2. Anything is possible but we need to narrow it down to what is probable. I'm not sure that we can.

[GuestGuest]

Also, the manner in which Joseph Ball questions Lovelady in the extract quoted seems significant as far as the identity of Prayer Man is concerned - he seems to be steering Lovelady away from an 'off-script' revelation that Prayer Man is Oswald.

A quick note on "off script" revelations.

In my reply to ian a moment ago I copied where Belin tried to get Mrs. Reid to commit to Oswald wearing his dark shirt or a jacket. She wouldn't do it.

But it made me think about Marrion Baker's testimony and they way they tried to get him to commit to the "arrest shirt".
Belin asked him about what Oswald was wearing. Baker said a white looking shirt and a light brown jacket. Dulles pipes up and gets him to repeat it and Baker does. Then Belin shows him CE 150 and tries to get him to commit to the arrest shirt again and Baker won't do it. On the third attempt, Baker finally states that when he saw Oswald later in the afternoon at the DPD, he says Oswald is dressed differently and never commits to Oswald wearing CE 150 at the TSBD.
You really can't get more "off script" than that.

I've done a blog about that here...bpete1969.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-shirtfor-last-time.html

[greg_parkerAdmin]

After going through the entire EF thread let me expand on why Oswald as Pm doesn't work for me.

Have you read my post fourth from the bottom of page 1 of this thread posted on 22 Aug 2013 @ 4.18 pm? (I tried copying it here but the text appears garbled when I do so.)

I believe it's clear from the Billy Lovelady WC testimony quoted there that Prayer Man could not be Bill Shelley. Also, the manner in which Joseph Ball questions Lovelady in the extract quoted seems significant as far as the identity of Prayer Man is concerned - he seems to be steering Lovelady away from an 'off-script' revelation that Prayer Man is Oswald.

For future reference -- if copied text appears garbled, delete it and re-paste by right click on mouse and paste as "plain text".

[Redfern]

Greetings Gentlemen,

I have just pulled a cram session after being directed here by a brother in arms and find the discussion worthy of the combined reputations and integrity I have witnessed by this group as individuals, on other forums.

That being said I would like to offer a special thank you to Robert Charles-Dunne for his years of civil discourse and wisdom.

I come to your group as an agnostic on who did what until I can convince myself that the evidence shows a certain thing. In 50 years I haven't convinced myself of much except every law agency involved were either grossly incompetent or took a dive . I have a firm belief in this...the earlier the statement the more reliable, for there's less chance for manipulation.

At the moment I can't be convinced that the person in question is Oswald. I think it's possible that he was where Fritz's note say he was, that being inside the building on the first floor, second floor and then out front on his way "out of Dodge".

I can't remember in 37 pages if this was brought up, but in Lovelady and Shelley's original statements, there is no mention of going down to the railroad tracks and then to the rear entrance. Shelley said he went inside to call his wife and tell her what happened and Lovelady said he went inside. this would explain two things: 1. Victoria Adams didn't see them because they were milling around out front and 2. This would have kept Shelley up towards the front to vouch for oswald as he was leaving and fit the "out front with Shelley" in Fritz's notes.

In looking at the frames from Darnel that Robin Unger sent me, I immediately identified Frazier I think before Sean did at the EF and made mention to Robin and others that I can't believe, with all of the people going back inside the building, that no one in 50 years has put Oswald on that landing on the entryway. Not even anonymously through someone's uncle's cousin's dog's sister's parakeet.

No one...that for me is the biggest hurdle.

I think it can easily be explained that the second floor lunch room encounter did happen. Oswald could have easily walked by the front entrance and saw Shelley on his way up the front stairs to the second floor to get his coke. He entered the vestibule from the office entrance and walked by the window in the door as Baker came around from one flight of stairs to the next. that would explain truly not seeing him.

I'm playing catch up but that's all for now.

After going through the entire EF thread let me expand on why Oswald as Pm doesn't work for me. These are just observations:

1. Shelley and Lovealdy's original statements to the DPD make no metion of the railroad track visit. Again, Shelley says he went back inside to call his wife and Lovelady says he went inside. I think the entire "left for the railroad tracks" is a bigger fabrication than anything offered thus far. The footage by Gerta Dunkel asks whether the two men in Couch are Shelley and Lovelady and I don't believe it's them. In his WC testimony, Shelley says they were walking down the middle of the street to the tracks. Dunkel's footage shows 2 guys walking on the sidewalk next to the building and one breaks away from the other, actually overtakes the guy closest to the street and looks like he breaks into a trot leaving the other behind. Shelley states they were at the island when they saw Baker and truly going to enter the building. The Dunkel footage shows them again, halfway down the block and they never appear to look back.The identification of Shelley in a suit and tie going to the police car I don't believe is Shelley. Shelley was overseeing the floor crew and most likely wore work clothes those days. In the testimony to the WC Shelley I believe states they went to the island and then the tracks. Lovelady says from the steps to the tracks. In the March signed statements I believe Shelley says they accompanied officers and Lovelady doesn't mention officers. 

2. The above doesn't allow us to eliminate Shelley as PM.

3.The statements of Someone seeing Oswald at the front store room is consistent with his coming down from the second floor, after buying a coke, prior to slipping out of the building.

4. I can't put any trust in the news items shown by Sean in the thread based on many statements not attributed to anyone. Considering the lack of source for much of the material I think much of it was based on he said she said that they said.

The initial statements from Shelley and Lovelady are very vague. They can hardly be interpreted as portraying the unvarnished truth, especially in relation to timing.

However, for the sake of argument, if their original account is true and the later story about leaving for the railroad tracks is a fabrication, then why would they lie?


As for Oswald being seen near the store-room near the front, how would that indicate he had gone there from the second-floor lunchroom?


If not Shelley and Lovelady (or outsiders), who were the two white men seen by Marrion Baker near the elevators?


Much of what certain people inside the TSBD said in affidavits and at the hearings must be taken with a pinch of salt. When we see glaring discrepancies in accounts given by Reid and Baker concerning descriptions of Oswald's clothes and Geneva Hine's contradiction of Reid's version of events, we are surely entitled to conclude that some witnesses lied.

In my view, the apparent fact that no-one mentioned Oswald being at the TSBD entrance should not be viewed as particularly significant. The story of the wallet found at the Tippit murder scene containing Oswald + Hidell ID only emerged decades later because James Hosty naively believed it 'proved' Oswald's guilt.

[GuestGuest]

In my view, the apparent fact that no-one mentioned Oswald being at the TSBD entrance should not be viewed as particularly significant. The story of the wallet found at the Tippit murder scene containing Oswald + Hidell ID only emerged decades later because James Hosty naively believed it 'proved' Oswald's guilt.

I find it very significant that not even Oswald claimed he was in the doorway when the shots were fired.

And while the wallet story "emerged decades later", in 5 decades nothing putting Oswald in the doorway at the time the shots were fired has emerged...from any source.

[John Mooney]

 bpete1969
I find it very significant that not even Oswald claimed he was in the doorway when the shots were fired.

Actually, we have little or no idea what he claimed.

Fritz's notes can be read as showing Oswald did claim he was out front eating his lunch with Bill Shelly though.

[GuestGuest]

Actually, we have little or no idea what he claimed.

Fritz's notes can be read as showing Oswald did claim he was out front eating his lunch with Bill Shelly though.

I agree. We do have little or no idea of what Oswald claimed.

Fritz's notes can be read many ways. All of the agents' notes present during the interrogations can be read many ways. They could all be fake.

For that reason, we throw out all of the interrogation notes and we're left with a Darnell crop, a Wiegman crop and no one claiming Oswald was in it.

If PM works for you so be it. I'm not here to change your mind, I simply voiced my opinion.

[GuestGuest]

Actually, we have little or no idea what he claimed.

Fritz's notes can be read as showing Oswald did claim he was out front eating his lunch with Bill Shelly though.

I agree. We do have little or no idea of what Oswald claimed.

Fritz's notes can be read many ways. All of the agents' notes present during the interrogations can be read many ways. They could all be fake.

For that reason, we throw out all of the interrogation notes and we're left with a Darnell crop, a Wiegman crop and no one claiming Oswald was in it.

If PM works for you so be it. I'm not here to change your mind, I simply voiced my opinion.

Fritz's notes are fake in one sense. For these to qualify as interrogation notes then they have to have been written DURING the interrogation.  Sean Murphy has put together a rational and well thought through set of arguments, based upon the evidence, that Fritz copied his so-called "interrogation notes" from those of James W. Bookhout.  Sean's arguments should give anybody with even a modicum of curiosity pause for thought when contemplating what was happening during and after the Oswald interrogations.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

I see the ed forum thread has slipped into a debate over the difference between "tan" and "reddish".

Look what you get when you google images of "tan shirt"

[Goban_Saor]

The following is my response to Bpete 1969’s recent posts.

The photographic evidence of Hughes through Wiegman to Altgens strongly indicates that the person Lovelady refers to as ‘right behind’ him is Prayer Man rather than Wesley Buell Frazier.

This is further indicated by the likelihood that Lovelady wasn’t aware of Frazier’s presence but that he was aware of Prayer Man’s presence. The reason for this is that his attention being fixed on the motorcade, he would probably not be aware of who was behind him. That is, unless he moved aside to allow that person have a clear view of the motorcade, the person in question being Prayer Man.

Another significant detail is that Lovelady in his WC testimony describes Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton as being in each other’s company both before he (Lovelady) went out to the doorway and again when he was outside with them. This is not consistent with the distinct sense of aloneness about the Prayer Man figure – a characteristic that seems a constant feature of the Oswald persona.

Moreover, the evidence of various witnesses in the doorway when correlated indicates that Prayer Man is not Shelley. First of all, as already noted, Lovelady in his WC testimony says that Shelley was with Sarah Stanton as distinct from being ‘right behind’ him. The following is from Pauline Saunders’ statement to the FBI on 19^th March 1964:

 “At approximately 12:20 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the lunchroom on the second floor of the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the presidential motorcade which I knew was due to pass the Depository about 12:30 PM. I took up a position at the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my recollection, I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance. I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am unsure as to the others...”


These two pieces of evidence taken together indicate that Shelley was somewhere to the east of Prayer Man’s position next to the west wall of the doorway.

Another indication of this is in Shelley’s statement to the Dallas Police on same day as the assassination:

William Shelley (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 24H226) “The President’s car was about halfway from Houston Street to the Triple Underpass when I heard what sounded like three shots. I couldn’t tell where they came from. I ran across the street to the corner of the park and ran into a girl crying and she said the President had been shot. The girl’s name is Gloria Calvery… I went back to the building and went inside and called my wife and told her what had happened. I was on the first floor then and I stayed at the elevator and was told not to let anyone out of the elevator. 
 
How could he know where the limo was when the shots were fired if he was standing where Prayer Man was? His view would have been blocked by the pilaster at the side of the doorway to his right.
 
While we know Shelley subsequently changed his story (a number of times?) about his movements in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, we must pay particular attention to first day testimony such as this. Here he says that immediately on hearing the shots he ran across the street. This would eliminate him as Prayer Man as we know that Prayer Man did not move from his position at this time.

Since we were not born yesterday we must ask why Shelley falsely testified about the assassination of the president. The only reason I can think of is that the false evidence was intended to obfuscate the fact that Oswald was standing in the TSBD doorway at the time of the assassination, that Prayer Man is Oswald.

In the midst of all these considerations, of course, we must not lose sight of the reason we are having this discussion – the photographic evidence that Prayer Man is Oswald. There is a distinct resemblance and even though the photographic images are blurred we can say for certain that Prayer Man is not Buell Frazier, Billy Lovelady, Roy Truly or any number of other Caucasian male candidates. And while we haven’t got a photograph of Bill Shelley, what are the chances that he would so strongly resemble Oswald as to be mistaken for him by so many of us in these images?

As for Prayer Man’s clothes, Bpete 1969 said, ‘Shelley was overseeing the floor crew and most likely wore work clothes those days.’ Did Shelley wear more formal attire normally? If so, there seems no reason why he wouldn’t continue to do so while they were working on the floor, as suggested by the following testimony of Billy Lovelady: ‘Mr. Shelley would come up every once in while, check on us. He wasn't workin' with us but he would come up see how we gettin' along.’ 


As well as all of the above, there is the unavoidable fact that according to Captain Fritz’s notes of Oswald’s interrogation Oswald said he was ‘out with Bill Shelley in front’ at the time of the assassination. How would Oswald know that Shelley was there unless Oswald was there too?

In relation to Bpete’s point about Sean Murphy’s reliance on comments reported in the press etc, Sean doesn’t generally rely on this kind of evidence in isolation from other evidence with which it can be cross-referenced and evaluated. This approach is necessitated by the fact that much of the ‘official’ evidence was patently false and tailored to fit a predetermined outcome.

And despite Bpete saying that Warren Commission Counsel Joseph Ball did not engage in such ‘fitting up’, it is a matter of official record, as evidenced in Nicholas Katzenbach’s memo to Bill Moyers on 24^th November 1963, that the main purpose of the Warren Commission would be to ‘find’ that there was no conspiracy involved in the assassination.

[GuestGuest]

As well as all of the above, there is the unavoidable fact that according to Captain Fritz’s notes of Oswald’s interrogation Oswald said he was ‘out with Bill Shelley in front’ at the time of the assassination. How would Oswald know that Shelley was there unless Oswald was there too?

And despite Bpete saying that Warren Commission Counsel Joseph Ball did not engage in such ‘fitting up’, it is a matter of official record, as evidenced in Nicholas Katzenbach’s memo to Bill Moyers on 24^th November 1963, that the main purpose of the Warren Commission would be to ‘find’ that there was no conspiracy involved in the assassination.

I have Fritz's notes in front of me and I don't see anywhere that is says Oswald claimed to be out front with Bill Shelley at the time of the shooting, there is an uncontexted statement "out with Bill Shelley in front". This could have been in response to a myriad of questions.Bookhout and Hosty's report claims he said he was on the first floor.
We've now taken the discussion full circle. Oswald could have easily seen Shelley through the glass if he walked to the front. Apparently no one on the first floor saw him go from the domino room to the front and out the door. If he went up the back stairway and went through the second floor and back down the front stairs and outside no one puts him on the front landing. If he went up the back stairs and got his coke and then went down the front he could have seen Shelley out front through the glass prior to leaving. If if if....we got a lot of if's and nothing concrete.
To borrow your expression: As well as all of the above, there is the unavoidable fact that no one puts Oswald on the front steps during the shooting.

I never said Ball didn't engage in fitting up...I said I didn't think he was fitting up in that instance sited. I was expressing an opinion.

I will repeat...I stated my opinion and I don't think the case was made that PM was Oswald simply because no one can put another name on him. We don't have a comprehensive list of those people present on the steps. Lovelady, Shelly and Frazier as well as others all seem dodgy in certain aspects of their statements and testimony.

Coupled with Oswald not saying he was out on the steps at the time of the shooting in anyone's notes...he never made that claim when given the chance in front of the press.

[StanDane]

Coupled with Oswald not saying he was out on the steps at the time of the shooting in anyone's notes...he never made that claim when given the chance in front of the press.

It's not like Oswald had oodles of opportunity to speak directly to the people. Several people have wondered why Oswald didn't shout some things out such as "I was in the goddamned doorway with my worker bubs, for crissakes!"
 
But why do that? He had time on his side. Plenty of time to tell the whole story—to his attorneys, to the courts, to reporters, to the public. Plenty of time to prove he wasn't up wherever they said he was shooting a damn rifle, etc. Other than his general protests, there was no need to say a whole lot more than he did—he was in protective custody now.
 
But had he known he was going to be whacked in a few hours, he might have blurted out some facts and some details during those fleeting encounters with reporters. With desperation and fear, I might add.

[GuestGuest]

It's not like Oswald had oodles of opportunity to speak directly to the people. Several people have wondered why Oswald didn't shout some things out such as "I was in the goddamned doorway with my worker bubs, for crissakes!"
 
But why do that? He had time on his side. Plenty of time to tell the whole story—to his attorneys, to the courts, to reporters, to the public.

ANNOUNCER: Dallas Police headquarters, November 22nd, 1963.
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I don't know what this is all about.
1st REPORTER: Did you kill the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No, sir, I didn't. People keep-- [crosstalk] Sir?
1st REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I work in that building.
1st REPORTER: Were you in the building at the time?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.
2nd REPORTER: Back up, man!
3rd REPORTER: Come on, man!
4th REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy.
5th REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?

ANNOUNCER: Tonight on FRONTLINE-- lone gunman, conspirator or patsy? Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?

w w w.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html


He had plenty of time to say he was outside when the shots hit the fan

[GuestGuest]

It's not like Oswald had oodles of opportunity to speak directly to the people. Several people have wondered why Oswald didn't shout some things out such as "I was in the goddamned doorway with my worker bubs, for crissakes!"
 
But why do that? He had time on his side. Plenty of time to tell the whole story—to his attorneys, to the courts, to reporters, to the public.

ANNOUNCER: Dallas Police headquarters, November 22nd, 1963.
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I don't know what this is all about.
1st REPORTER: Did you kill the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No, sir, I didn't. People keep-- [crosstalk] Sir?
1st REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I work in that building.
1st REPORTER: Were you in the building at the time?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.
2nd REPORTER: Back up, man!
3rd REPORTER: Come on, man!
4th REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy.
5th REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?

ANNOUNCER: Tonight on FRONTLINE-- lone gunman, conspirator or patsy? Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?

w w w.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html


He had plenty of time to say he was outside when the shots hit the fan

Tell me, Mr. BPete1969, what are your thoughts on the single bullet theory because I'm getting the impression here that each and every anomaly, question, problem, concern and issue could be countered with a "yeah, but", a "what if", or "but what about" type answer.

Rather than looking at the whole series of arguments (that raise serious and important issues) that have been put together concerning "Prayer Man" do we instead now have to go back into it on a micro-level and knock down contrary arguments?

Let me say one thing before I disengage from this; the minute that I read that Buell Wesley Frazier would not identify himself as the person on the doorway landing was the minute I KNEW that that was Oswald stood next to him.  If Buell Wesley Frazier is now saying the the person in that frame is not him then it tells us everything we need to know.  As far as I'm concerned BWF knows that Lee Oswald was stood next to him that afternoon and all of his ducking and diving over the last 50 years, his BS story, as well as him being given very specific chaperones to protect him in Dallas suddenly becomes more clear.  My two cents

[John Mooney]

I have Fritz's notes in front of me and I don't see anywhere that is says Oswald claimed to be out front with Bill Shelley at the time of the shooting, there is an uncontexted statement "out with Bill Shelley in front". This could have been in response to a myriad of questions.Bookhout and Hosty's report claims he said he was on the first floor.

Sadly we'll never know, it could be a summary of many of Oswald answers.

I disagree with "uncontexted" by the way.

The context is he finished his work, got a coke on the 2nd floor had lunch on the 1st floor and was out front with Bill Shelly.

There is a sequence.

[GuestGuest]

Tell me, Mr. BPete1969, what are your thoughts on the single bullet theory because I'm getting the impression here that each and every anomaly, question, problem, concern and issue could be countered with a "yeah, but", a "what if", or "but what about" type answer.

Rather than looking at the whole series of arguments (that raise serious and important issues) that have been put together concerning "Prayer Man" do we instead now have to go back into it on a micro-level and knock down contrary arguments?

Let me say one thing before I disengage from this; the minute that I read that Buell Wesley Frazier would not identify himself as the person on the doorway landing was the minute I KNEW that that was Oswald stood next to him.  If Buell Wesley Frazier is now saying the the person in that frame is not him then it tells us everything we need to know.  As far as I'm concerned BWF knows that Lee Oswald was stood next to him that afternoon and all of his ducking and diving over the last 50 years, his BS story, as well as him being given very specific chaperones to protect him in Dallas suddenly becomes more clear.  My two cents

Mr. Lee Farley,
I get the impression that your sudden use of titles and demand for answers to a litmus test are nothing more than thinly veil sarcasm and disingenuous when you demand answers and then claim disengagement before offering your two cents. Inflationary trends, as they are in the world, usually result in two cents being compounded to 4 cents and then 8 etc. etc. The last 50 years of JFK research are based entirely on "every anomaly, question, problem, concern and issue could be(ing) countered with a "yeah, but", a "what if", or "but what about" type answer. I didn't realize that the process had been deemed unacceptable.

You, are in essence, making the demand of me, that the whole series of arguments put together concerning PM be accepted without question, when the entire series of arguments put forth are contingent upon accepting things that are based entirely on speculation. Your denouncement of my "what if" followed by your demand that I accept a different "what if" is directly from the fetzerian school of debate and I get enough of that dismantling Cinque's daily dose of fantasy.

The whole premise of PM not being Shelley is based on the declaration that Shelley and Lovelady left immediately from the front steps as documented in Couch. Until someone can definitively prove that Shelley is seen walking away from the TSBD in Couch then I don't buy the premise that Shelley can't be PM.
The evidence, based on the progression of statements by Shelley, Lovelady and Calvary do not support that claim.
In fact, if you look at the progression of statements from Shelley and the catch up mode of Lovelady's statement you will see that Shelley is contradicted every time by someone else. Until someone can take Wiegman and Darnell and show me exactly which individual is which, the identity of PM is open for debate (although as you've shown, not with you or in this thread based on your attitude)

I get the impression that no matter what evidence is discussed, it is your contention that Oswald had absolutely clean hands in the days events and you're entitled to your opinion. Your two cents show that no matter what evidence is discussed, you have decided that BWF is complicit. Again, you're welcome to your opinion. I have a similar opinion about Shelley. Personally, I think Oswald was up to his eyeballs in something although I haven't been able to figure out what at this point.

So before, as you so eloquently put it, disengage, take with you my wishes for a pleasant day as it seems I've caused you heartburn by simply stating my opinion.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Tell me, Mr. BPete1969, what are your thoughts on the single bullet theory because I'm getting the impression here that each and every anomaly, question, problem, concern and issue could be countered with a "yeah, but", a "what if", or "but what about" type answer.

Rather than looking at the whole series of arguments (that raise serious and important issues) that have been put together concerning "Prayer Man" do we instead now have to go back into it on a micro-level and knock down contrary arguments?

Let me say one thing before I disengage from this; the minute that I read that Buell Wesley Frazier would not identify himself as the person on the doorway landing was the minute I KNEW that that was Oswald stood next to him.  If Buell Wesley Frazier is now saying the the person in that frame is not him then it tells us everything we need to know.  As far as I'm concerned BWF knows that Lee Oswald was stood next to him that afternoon and all of his ducking and diving over the last 50 years, his BS story, as well as him being given very specific chaperones to protect him in Dallas suddenly becomes more clear.  My two cents

Mr. Lee Farley,
I get the impression that your sudden use of titles and demand for answers to a litmus test are nothing more than thinly veil sarcasm and disingenuous when you demand answers and then claim disengagement before offering your two cents. Inflationary trends, as they are in the world, usually result in two cents being compounded to 4 cents and then 8 etc. etc. The last 50 years of JFK research are based entirely on "every anomaly, question, problem, concern and issue could be(ing) countered with a "yeah, but", a "what if", or "but what about" type answer. I didn't realize that the process had been deemed unacceptable.

You, are in essence, making the demand of me, that the whole series of arguments put together concerning PM be accepted without question, when the entire series of arguments put forth are contingent upon accepting things that are based entirely on speculation. Your denouncement of my "what if" followed by your demand that I accept a different "what if" is directly from the fetzerian school of debate and I get enough of that dismantling Cinque's daily dose of fantasy.

The whole premise of PM not being Shelley is based on the declaration that Shelley and Lovelady left immediately from the front steps as documented in Couch. Until someone can definitively prove that Shelley is seen walking away from the TSBD in Couch then I don't buy the premise that Shelley can't be PM.
The evidence, based on the progression of statements by Shelley, Lovelady and Calvary do not support that claim.
In fact, if you look at the progression of statements from Shelley and the catch up mode of Lovelady's statement you will see that Shelley is contradicted every time by someone else. Until someone can take Wiegman and Darnell and show me exactly which individual is which, the identity of PM is open for debate (although as you've shown, not with you or in this thread based on your attitude)

I get the impression that no matter what evidence is discussed, it is your contention that Oswald had absolutely clean hands in the days events and you're entitled to your opinion. Your two cents show that no matter what evidence is discussed, you have decided that BWF is complicit. Again, you're welcome to your opinion. I have a similar opinion about Shelley. Personally, I think Oswald was up to his eyeballs in something although I haven't been able to figure out what at this point.

So before, as you so eloquently put it, disengage, take with you my wishes for a pleasant day as it seems I've caused you heartburn by simply stating my opinion.

One of the things that sometimes happens is that facets of a particular theory will be knocked down, and the proponents of the theory will just keep coming back with "but what about" - so you go about checking that out and it turns out to be utter crap as well, so you report back on the actual facts... and off we go again with something else. With some, it is simply trolling for the hell of it - with others, it is simply an inability to admit the theory has no legs, just baggage.

I don't know if that is similar to what you have been doing, but I can understand Lee thinking it may be the case. FWIW, if it turned out not to be Oswald, I think the path you're on might be worth a closer look.

I'm not sure about Oswald being in this up to his ears though... and in any case, that's another debate... 

This is just off the top without checking little things like timing of films etc... but if the timings permit, might it be possible Oswald came out after hearing the crowd cheering as the motorcade came into view - not AFTER the assassination - and that he re-entered the building BEFORE the shots and was standing inside when Truly and Baker came in?

BPM (Before Prayer Man) that had been one of the possibilities I had on the table. He was reported as saying he went "downstairs" after hearing the commotion... where others have interpreted the "commotion" to be the shots and ensuing panic... I don't think that's necessarily the case... lots of cheering could just as easily fill the bill...

[GuestGuest]

The two cents has just multiplied.

1. Thank you for using my full title.  I can assure you it is my real name, Mr. 1969.

2. I don't know whether your daily intellectual duels with a certifiable nut job who probably should be in a psychiatric ward has resulted in you losing some of your own marbles but what I seem to missing here are these so-called "demands" you claim I have made of you.  I made none so, rest assured, I expect nothing from you.  Do you know what a "demand" is?

3. Every step of the Baker-Truly narrative has been picked apart by Sean Murphy.  Piece by piece it has been dismantled and put back together in a running order that makes more sense than it ever has before.  This new running order reinforces something important being quickly covered up,  He has backed up every sentence he has written with evidence.  He has scoured every newspaper looking for key information.  He has micro analysed the statements and testimony of all the key players.  He has raked over the interrogation notes and reports of Fritz, Bookhout, and Holmes.  He has proposed a fascinating argument that Fritz copied his notes from Bookhouts.  He has developed an alternate narrative concerning Baker's reluctance to ID Oswald at the station.  His ideas and work have developed over the course of years.  When he first pitched the idea that PM could be Oswald he was using frames from Darnell and Weigman that consisted of black blobs.  When Robin Unger brings a clearer copy into the mix, well, who does it begin to look more like?  It looks more like Oswald.  Word gets out that Frazier has been identified for the first time in the photographic evidence and, bugger me with a lettuce, Frazier denies it's him.  And yet, despite all the bullshit statements, all the changing of stories, all the 180's on what happened where and when, the first day statement of O. V. Campbell, and on and on.  In spite of all of this - you want to come on this forum and lecture to us all that guy on the steps could be William Shelley?  When we still don't bleedin' know what the guy looked like!  When we have possible footage of him walking away with Lovelady?  When conventional wisdom would have us believe he was wearing a suit and tie?  

4.  I thank Sean Murphy for all the work he has done and the effort he has put into this.  He really is a good dose of Gaviscon after many of us get heartburn from a diet of shit.

5.  Well done on your continuing duels with Jim Fetzer and Ralph Cinque.  You really are serving the community well by doggedly persevering with the fight against them.  After the rest of us long gave up when Jim and Ralph's obvious mental illness was undeniable - you've carried on.  Clap ------------- clap ------------------clap

And to top it all off you come on here and compare me to the pair of them?  Really? Let's see if the four cents now multiply further?

6. Wind your damn neck in.

[GuestGuest]

The two cents has just multiplied.

1. Thank you for using my full title.  I can assure you it is my real name, Mr. 1969.

2. I don't know whether your daily intellectual duels with a certifiable nut job who probably should be in a psychiatric ward has resulted in you losing some of your own marbles but what I seem to missing here are these so-called "demands" you claim I have made of you.  I made none so, rest assured, I expect nothing from you.  Do you know what a "demand" is?

3. Every step of the Baker-Truly narrative has been picked apart by Sean Murphy.  Piece by piece it has been dismantled and put back together in a running order that makes more sense than it ever has before.  This new running order reinforces something important being quickly covered up,  He has backed up every sentence he has written with evidence.  He has scoured every newspaper looking for key information.  He has micro analysed the statements and testimony of all the key players.  He has raked over the interrogation notes and reports of Fritz, Bookhout, and Holmes.  He has proposed a fascinating argument that Fritz copied his notes from Bookhouts.  He has developed an alternate narrative concerning Baker's reluctance to ID Oswald at the station.  His ideas and work have developed over the course of years.  When he first pitched the idea that PM could be Oswald he was using frames from Darnell and Weigman that consisted of black blobs.  When Robin Unger brings a clearer copy into the mix, well, who does it begin to look more like?  It looks more like Oswald.  Word gets out that Frazier has been identified for the first time in the photographic evidence and, bugger me with a lettuce, Frazier denies it's him.  And yet, despite all the bullshit statements, all the changing of stories, all the 180's on what happened where and when, the first day statement of O. V. Campbell, and on and on.  In spite of all of this - you want to come on this forum and lecture to us all that guy on the steps could be William Shelley?  When we still don't bleedin' know what the guy looked like!  When we have possible footage of him walking away with Lovelady?  When conventional wisdom would have us believe he was wearing a suit and tie?  

4.  I thank Sean Murphy for all the work he has done and the effort he has put into this.  He really is a good dose of Gaviscon after many of us get heartburn from a diet of shit.

5.  Well done on your continuing duels with Jim Fetzer and Ralph Cinque.  You really are serving the community well by doggedly persevering with the fight against them.  After the rest of us long gave up when Jim and Ralph's obvious mental illness was undeniable - you've carried on.  Clap ------------- clap ------------------clap

And to top it all off you come on here and compare me to the pair of them?  Really? Let's see if the four cents now multiply further?

6. Wind your damn neck in.

1. You're welcome, and thank you for proving me correct in my prediction. Oh by the way, you can call me bpete, I don't mind. My first name starts with a b and my last name starts with pete, the 1969 is just thrown in for color.

2. I know what a demand is, apparently you're oblivious to the concept. "Tell me your thoughts on the single bullet theory" is a demand when uttered in the context you did, as a qualifier for anything else I was to say, and especially when you take in to consideration that you then stated you would disengage "from this" and not hang around for the answer. When I said "thinly veiled sarcasm", I meant one of cheesecloth with a 5 thread count.

3. If, as you say, the theory was picked apart and put back together, then tell me why he immediately relies on testimony from Shelley at the WC?
Shelley's initial statement on the day of events puts him running to the island and returning and going inside the building. Lovelady's initial statement says nothing of the island and returns inside the building.
Shelley's next statement has him going to the island and then accompanying "officers" to the tracks and then returning to the building from the side. Lovelady's next statement has him going to the island with Shelley and then returning to the building from the side. No mention of tracks.
When you get to the WC the story changes even more.
It's no wonder you have heartburn...how dare someone you've never spoken to on a forum, come to your forum and state their opinion! Why, it's so insulting that Mr. Lee Farley describes it as lecturing when in all actuality, it was someone that within 4 posts after their initial post was having words put in his mouth and being asked questions. It's insulting that he would even attempt to answer any one of them. It's outrageous !!!!

4. That and $2.00 will get you a beer in most bars.

5. Thank you...sometimes it can be trying. Your histrionics aside, if you don't like the comparison, don't pull cheap confrontational stunts. I will commend you though as an old school instructor once told me... if you don't put your two cents worth in, you can't expect any "change".

6. Don't hurt your arm trying to pat yourself on the back, it could cause you to fall off your soapbox before you complete your disengagement.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

The two cents has just multiplied.

1. Thank you for using my full title.  I can assure you it is my real name, Mr. 1969.

Lee, we allow people to use aliases here, so criticism of those taking up that option is probably unfair. I have allowed aliases simply because there is nothing inherently illegal about using them. Others are free to make up their own minds why someone might use one. It's also possible that he/she has legally changed their name. The alternative is that we go down the route of demanding real names, photos, bios of everyone.  If the majority want that, then Hasan and Richard can make the call. Until then, you're on far more substantive ground with the rest of your post.   

2. I don't know whether your daily intellectual duels with a certifiable nut job who probably should be in a psychiatric ward has resulted in you losing some of your own marbles but what I seem to missing here are these so-called "demands" you claim I have made of you.  I made none so, rest assured, I expect nothing from you.  Do you know what a "demand" is?

It is not unknown that someone will falsely accuse someone else of making "demands" in order to change the focus...

3. Every step of the Baker-Truly narrative has been picked apart by Sean Murphy.  Piece by piece it has been dismantled and put back together in a running order that makes more sense than it ever has before.  This new running order reinforces something important being quickly covered up,  He has backed up every sentence he has written with evidence.  He has scoured every newspaper looking for key information.  He has micro analysed the statements and testimony of all the key players.  He has raked over the interrogation notes and reports of Fritz, Bookhout, and Holmes.  He has proposed a fascinating argument that Fritz copied his notes from Bookhouts.  He has developed an alternate narrative concerning Baker's reluctance to ID Oswald at the station.  His ideas and work have developed over the course of years.  When he first pitched the idea that PM could be Oswald he was using frames from Darnell and Weigman that consisted of black blobs.  When Robin Unger brings a clearer copy into the mix, well, who does it begin to look more like?  It looks more like Oswald.  Word gets out that Frazier has been identified for the first time in the photographic evidence and, bugger me with a lettuce, Frazier denies it's him.  And yet, despite all the bullshit statements, all the changing of stories, all the 180's on what happened where and when, the first day statement of O. V. Campbell, and on and on.  In spite of all of this - you want to come on this forum and lecture to us all that guy on the steps could be William Shelley?  When we still don't bleedin' know what the guy looked like!  When we have possible footage of him walking away with Lovelady?  When conventional wisdom would have us believe he was wearing a suit and tie?  

I think Sean has got most of it right, and his analysis of Fritz' notes being taken from Bookhout was superlative. It was also all but confirmed by Wade in his testimony.

I take back my previous comment that I'd consider "Shelley" if it was shown not to be Oswald. Have just reviewed the stuff on Shelley, and the ID looks more solid than I previously gave it credit for being.

What it has achieved is FINALLY cracking the wall of resistance concerning the alleged lunch-room encounter. (my good friend BK notwithstanding...). It now has to go to the next level and get media attention.

4.  I thank Sean Murphy for all the work he has done and the effort he has put into this.  He really is a good dose of Gaviscon after many of us get heartburn from a diet of shit.

Yep. I raised a a 50/50 Guinness-Kilkenny to him last night - with a shot of Vodka thrown in to the mix for the looming anniversary of Lee's "defection". The poor Irish backpacker behind the bar looked at me quizzically and asked "Are you serious"? I replied "there's an Irishman and a Patsy I need to toast and I don't have time for two drinks..." I have a million and one ways kill a discussion.

In giving Sean his due, I might remind you that the work is no more meticulous, no more important than the work done by you on the getaway bus, and the two epic threads not only work together, they stand as a shining light to what is achievable when we get past all the conditioning - which has worked in a similar fashion to this: A court will sometimes be offered up a set of stipulated facts which both sides have agreed to accept. The critical community has by and large, accepted the governments "stipulated facts" and not contested them. Well, some have now been contested and found wanting. The same approach is needs to be used on the rest of the "stipulated facts". 

5.  Well done on your continuing duels with Jim Fetzer and Ralph Cinque.  You really are serving the community well by doggedly persevering with the fight against them.  After the rest of us long gave up when Jim and Ralph's obvious mental illness was undeniable - you've carried on.  Clap ------------- clap ------------------clap

And to top it all off you come on here and compare me to the pair of them?  Really? Let's see if the four cents now multiply further?

That one somehow got past me to the keeper...

6. Wind your damn neck in.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

The two cents has just multiplied.

1. Thank you for using my full title.  I can assure you it is my real name, Mr. 1969.

2. I don't know whether your daily intellectual duels with a certifiable nut job who probably should be in a psychiatric ward has resulted in you losing some of your own marbles but what I seem to missing here are these so-called "demands" you claim I have made of you.  I made none so, rest assured, I expect nothing from you.  Do you know what a "demand" is?

3. Every step of the Baker-Truly narrative has been picked apart by Sean Murphy.  Piece by piece it has been dismantled and put back together in a running order that makes more sense than it ever has before.  This new running order reinforces something important being quickly covered up,  He has backed up every sentence he has written with evidence.  He has scoured every newspaper looking for key information.  He has micro analysed the statements and testimony of all the key players.  He has raked over the interrogation notes and reports of Fritz, Bookhout, and Holmes.  He has proposed a fascinating argument that Fritz copied his notes from Bookhouts.  He has developed an alternate narrative concerning Baker's reluctance to ID Oswald at the station.  His ideas and work have developed over the course of years.  When he first pitched the idea that PM could be Oswald he was using frames from Darnell and Weigman that consisted of black blobs.  When Robin Unger brings a clearer copy into the mix, well, who does it begin to look more like?  It looks more like Oswald.  Word gets out that Frazier has been identified for the first time in the photographic evidence and, bugger me with a lettuce, Frazier denies it's him.  And yet, despite all the bullshit statements, all the changing of stories, all the 180's on what happened where and when, the first day statement of O. V. Campbell, and on and on.  In spite of all of this - you want to come on this forum and lecture to us all that guy on the steps could be William Shelley?  When we still don't bleedin' know what the guy looked like!  When we have possible footage of him walking away with Lovelady?  When conventional wisdom would have us believe he was wearing a suit and tie?  

4.  I thank Sean Murphy for all the work he has done and the effort he has put into this.  He really is a good dose of Gaviscon after many of us get heartburn from a diet of shit.

5.  Well done on your continuing duels with Jim Fetzer and Ralph Cinque.  You really are serving the community well by doggedly persevering with the fight against them.  After the rest of us long gave up when Jim and Ralph's obvious mental illness was undeniable - you've carried on.  Clap ------------- clap ------------------clap

And to top it all off you come on here and compare me to the pair of them?  Really? Let's see if the four cents now multiply further?

6. Wind your damn neck in.

1. You're welcome, and thank you for proving me correct in my prediction. Oh by the way, you can call me bpete, I don't mind. My first name starts with a b and my last name starts with pete, the 1969 is just thrown in for color.

2. I know what a demand is, apparently you're oblivious to the concept. "Tell me your thoughts on the single bullet theory" is a demand when uttered in the context you did, as a qualifier for anything else I was to say, and especially when you take in to consideration that you then stated you would disengage "from this" and not hang around for the answer. When I said "thinly veiled sarcasm", I meant one of cheesecloth with a 5 thread count.

Rhetorical rather than demanding -- but just my opinion.

3. If, as you say, the theory was picked apart and put back together, then tell me why he immediately relies on testimony from Shelley at the WC?
Shelley's initial statement on the day of events puts him running to the island and returning and going inside the building. Lovelady's initial statement says nothing of the island and returns inside the building.
Shelley's next statement has him going to the island and then accompanying "officers" to the tracks and then returning to the building from the side. Lovelady's next statement has him going to the island with Shelley and then returning to the building from the side. No mention of tracks.
When you get to the WC the story changes even more.

One of the two men in the film being put forward as Lovelady and Shelley, does seem to match the guy getting into the cop car with to others. And that matches the statements of the two cops who said they took Shelley and two others...

Yes -- Shelley and Lovelady are all over the place in their statements... but other evidence (such as the above) has been used to straighten it out.

It's no wonder you have heartburn...how dare someone you've never spoken to on a forum, come to your forum and state their opinion! Why, it's so insulting that Mr. Lee Farley describes it as lecturing when in all actuality, it was someone that within 4 posts after their initial post was having words put in his mouth and being asked questions. It's insulting that he would even attempt to answer any one of them. It's outrageous !!!!

4. That and $2.00 will get you a beer in most bars.

5. Thank you...sometimes it can be trying. Your histrionics aside, if you don't like the comparison, don't pull cheap confrontational stunts. I will commend you though as an old school instructor once told me... if you don't put your two cents worth in, you can't expect any "change".

6. Don't hurt your arm trying to pat yourself on the back, it could cause you to fall off your soapbox before you complete your disengagement.

How about we all disengage from this and get back to the topic? One of your objections was Oswald never saying (as far as we know) he was outside at the time shots? In my previous post, I suggested a scenario which allows for him to be PM but not there when the shooting started. I haven't got the brain-space right now to go and chase the timing of the film and any other data that may affect this scenario. Can someone give me a quick "yes" or "no" as to whether such a scenario is possible?

[GuestGuest]

One of the two men in the film being put forward as Lovelady and Shelley, does seem to match the guy getting into the cop car with to others. And that matches the statements of the two cops who said they took Shelley and two others...

Yes -- Shelley and Lovelady are all over the place in their statements... but other evidence (such as the above) has been used to straighten it out.

I can understand your reasoning but I'm not confident it has been straightened out. The two photos used to show Shelley show a younger person that was a participant at a dog show and someone that looks like a cop. I think the one that looks like a cop is a cop.

How about we all disengage from this and get back to the topic? One of your objections was Oswald never saying (as far as we know) he was outside at the time shots? In my previous post, I suggested a scenario which allows for him to be PM but not there when the shooting started. I haven't got the brain-space right now to go and chase the timing of the film and any other data that may affect this scenario. Can someone give me a quick "yes" or "no" as to whether such a scenario is possible?

I was going to respond to your previous post but got involved in other things.
I think it quite possible that Oswald did exactly as the actions attributed to him describe. I think he very well could have eaten his lunch, gone upstairs, returned to the first floor and then left. I think Shelley lied when he said he didn't see Oswald and that was the purpose of his ever evolving story. I think his initial statement was an attempt to remove himself from the front door long enough to say Oswald left but no one that was migrating back to the building, nor anyone on the step claims to have seen Oswald leave. The closest we come is an individual asking for the location of the phone and then *poof*, Oswald evaporates. Darnell as well as the statements of workers put a load of people trying to get back inside, some make it and others are not allowed entrance. Several state that they were hanging out listening to reports over the motorcycle radios and yet no one sees Oswald leave.
Shelley gives statements and Lovelady plays catch up. It seems as though confirmation from Lovelady as to Shelley's movements always come 1 statement late.
Sean does a good job of showing Fritz possibly copied his notes from Bookhout's so let's forget Fritz and go to the source...Bookhout.

It is possible that Oswald popped outside and then back in. As crowded as the front landing area was, I would think another person joining the group would have been noticed by someone. As I stated before, the landing was only 4 feet deep based on the scaled diagram of the entrance.

Another thing that has bothered me is that when it came time for testimony, the WC wanted people to identify Lovelady in an Altgens crop. They had Wiegman and made no attempt to nail down exactly where anyone was except Lovelady for obvious reason, and Frazier. No one ever asked anyone to look at Altgens and say where Shelley was.
No attempt was made to account for anyone else. No attempt was made to contradict Shelley's claim that he never saw Oswald on his way out or gave him permission to leave.

[Sponsored content]