"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.

[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.

[dwdunn(akaDan)]

When I first read Baker's testimony (years ago) I took it as a straightforward account from an honest police officer doing his duty. For instance, he said he thought the shots had been fired from either atop the TSBD or the adjoining building and rushed to the TSBD first. But what I read of his account of Truly's behavior gave me similar impressions to what Greg's mentioned. Basically, I had 2 large questions:

1) Truly put himself forward as the building manager (nothing as such suspicious about that, typical of such people and their sense of self-importance), but he took Baker to the elevatr and, finding it wasn't available, Truly yelled up the elevator shaft for someone to send the elevator down. It occurred to me that this could theoretically be a way of warning someone "up there."

2) It didn't take long for Baker to say (paraphrasing), "The hell with it, let's take the stairs." But as Greg's mentioned, it was Truly in the lead! Running up the stairs, facing a potential confrontation with an assassin, with a police officer behind..... that didn't make a bit of sense to me.

I could rationalize much of this as odd behavior in the heat of the moment, but it occurred to me that it could mean Truly was taking advantage of the heat of the moment, and definitely seemed to be "taking the lead" at almost every point. So I've always been suspicous of Truly ever since, for whatever that's worth.

Hey Dan, sorry to hear about your computer hard drive dying on Oct. 16th (RIP); you sure do have great luck. But at least now that you have a used but refurbished model with Windows 7, you can finally understand why so many of the wags over at the RKC Forum seemed to be operating at a phenomenal speed (it wasn't just drug use after all you see). And while you had no computer for 2 weeks, you also found your old notebook from when you were just getting started in the grand world of Conspiracy Research. Totally forgot about the notes you made while reading Roy Truly's WC testimony, for whatever it might or might not be worth:

Roy Truly    Vol III WCH


-- & what was your sister's boyfriend n 5th grade

-- workd @ NortAmerican Aviation, Arlington (14 mos, @ night, PT)

-- a membr o TSBD board o dirctrs, superintendent snce 1944

-- c. Oct 15 1963 first heard LHO name, received phone call from lady n Irving who said her name was Mrs. Paine

"words to this effect" RPaine: "Mr. Truly, you don't know who I am but I have a neighbor whose brother works for you. I don't know what his name is. But he tells his sister that you are very busy. And I am just wondering if you can use another man," or words to that effect.  p. 213

220 details/221 "a rifle of some kind"/227 why not keep going on the stairs - quicker than an elevator ride? (I find that strikingly suspicious - "Hey, we finally got an elevator!"), called up (2x) & rang bell (2x), bypassed 6th floor & went straight to 7th from 5th (Truly was coordinating the search party)
evidently Baker had reason to look on the roof; if arranged properly, elevator on 5th floor is convenient for someone's escape from the building in this scenario
230, singled out Oswald

One comment on the following page is evidently after reading Baker's WC testimony:

Baker - repeatedly references Dal-Tex building but WC don't pursue it

[greg_parkerAdmin]

forgot to underline "Truly" as in original note)

Go and stand in the corner.

I've always been suspicous of Truly ever since, for whatever that's worth.

While you're standing over there, contemplate that however suspicious you are of Truly - it isn't enough. He is the last link in the chain and it stretches way back...

[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.

greg,
Something I forgot to mention re: Shelley and the footage of him being transported to give a statement.

In this thread at the EF: educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=9c988a1bf9269c70c3a6468f98eab6fa&showtopic=19178

I think Mr. Lee Farley had it right at the beginning of the thread when he stated that William Shelley didn't ride in the group with Det. Brown and Senkel. Williams claimed Shelley went with Lovelady's group. I'm trying to find a statement from whoever took Lovelady down.

There is a youtube clip showing the man in the tie on the rear driver side of the auto. If Det. Brown is the gentleman getting into the passenger side front...where is Senkel? The car is driven by a uniformed patrolman not a detective.

Unless...when Senkel says in his typed statement that officer Brown said he had a vehicle and would drive me down to the station, office brown was referring to the patrol officer driving the car.

But there is another of Gerda's GIFs showing who she thinks is Brown in the basement and his statement is that he was helping move cars when Oswald was shot.

If Brown is actually the Detective that got into the passenger front in the clip showing the group leaving with Williams, then Senkel is in the rear or had to have gone in a different car.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

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.

greg,
Something I forgot to mention re: Shelley and the footage of him being transported to give a statement.

In this thread at the EF: educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=9c988a1bf9269c70c3a6468f98eab6fa&showtopic=19178

I think Mr. Lee Farley had it right at the beginning of the thread when he stated that William Shelley didn't ride in the group with Det. Brown and Senkel. Williams claimed Shelley went with Lovelady's group. I'm trying to find a statement from whoever took Lovelady down.

There is a youtube clip showing the man in the tie on the rear driver side of the auto. If Det. Brown is the gentleman getting into the passenger side front...where is Senkel? The car is driven by a uniformed patrolman not a detective.

Unless...when Senkel says in his typed statement that officer Brown said he had a vehicle and would drive me down to the station, office brown was referring to the patrol officer driving the car.

But there is another of Gerda's GIFs showing who she thinks is Brown in the basement and his statement is that he was helping move cars when Oswald was shot.

If Brown is actually the Detective that got into the passenger front in the clip showing the group leaving with Williams, then Senkel is in the rear or had to have gone in a different car.

Okay, thanks. I'll check this out when I get a chance.

[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.

greg,
Something I forgot to mention re: Shelley and the footage of him being transported to give a statement.

In this thread at the EF: educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=9c988a1bf9269c70c3a6468f98eab6fa&showtopic=19178

I think Mr. Lee Farley had it right at the beginning of the thread when he stated that William Shelley didn't ride in the group with Det. Brown and Senkel. Williams claimed Shelley went with Lovelady's group. I'm trying to find a statement from whoever took Lovelady down.

There is a youtube clip showing the man in the tie on the rear driver side of the auto. If Det. Brown is the gentleman getting into the passenger side front...where is Senkel? The car is driven by a uniformed patrolman not a detective.

Unless...when Senkel says in his typed statement that officer Brown said he had a vehicle and would drive me down to the station, office brown was referring to the patrol officer driving the car.

But there is another of Gerda's GIFs showing who she thinks is Brown in the basement and his statement is that he was helping move cars when Oswald was shot.

If Brown is actually the Detective that got into the passenger front in the clip showing the group leaving with Williams, then Senkel is in the rear or had to have gone in a different car.

I hope somebody does finally gets to the bottom of the Shelley-Senkel question.

I have never agreed with the consensus view that Bill Shelley is the guy wearing the black suit and tie who is seen opening the patrol car doors for Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce.  Especially when we have an unidentified male stood behind Williams and Arce.  Now, this guy (below) looks more like somebody who is being taken down to the station for questioning. I've never understood the logic behind the Shelley ID.



I've wavered and flip-flopped on where I think Shelley is on the steps and after mulling over Sean's work over the last few weeks I have come full circle.  Shelley, IMO, is probably the guy wearing the tie, top half of his face in shadow, one or two steps up from where Lovelady stands in Altgens.  

 


And if I'm right then Shelley certainly isn't Prayer Man.  But if I'm wrong and Shelley is the guy that I think is Senkel then he's also not Prayer Man. 


EDIT: Should have read the additions to my EF thread you linked to before writing the above.  Didn't get around to it until just now.  Interesting development.  Got to say that I have to agree and the footage of the two men walking away from the TSBD certainly begins to shore things up.

[dwdunn(akaDan)]

forgot to underline "Truly" as in original note)

Go and stand in the corner.

I've always been suspicous of Truly ever since, for whatever that's worth.

While you're standing over there, contemplate that however suspicious you are of Truly - it isn't enough. He is the last link in the chain and it stretches way back...

Ok dad I give up.

Good luck to good people.

[Hasan Yusuf]

I believe the information on page 4 of the following Baylor file will be of interest; as I think it is relevant to this discussion (and the name Warren Caster should spring into mind when you read it):

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/25543

I'll admit that Sam Pate comes across as a fruitcake, but I don't think he is necessarily wrong about Charlie Brown.

[GuestGuest]

I hope somebody does finally gets to the bottom of the Shelley-Senkel question.

I have never agreed with the consensus view that Bill Shelley is the guy wearing the black suit and tie who is seen opening the patrol car doors for Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce.  Especially when we have an unidentified male stood behind Williams and Arce.  Now, this guy (below) looks more like somebody who is being taken down to the station for questioning. I've never understood the logic behind the Shelley ID.

The man above is Det. Brown as confirmed by his partner's affidavit describing the activities in the basement when Oswald was shot.I was concerned that when Senkel said that Officer Brown had a car, that Brown might be a uniform cop.

jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/09/0920-002.gif

Det. Brown rode in the ambulance and stayed with Oswald's body until it hit the morgue.

Here's another photo of Det. brown. He's second from your left.
(I can't post links so just back out the spaces between the w's)

w w w.allposters.com/-sp/Dying-Assassin-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-in-Ambulance-after-Shot-by-Jack-Ruby-Dallas-Police-Station-Posters_i9360809_.htm

Page 13 of this thread has Gerda's GIF showing Brown.

educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19178&page=13

Page 12 of the same thread has a link to this vid.

w w w.youtube.com/watch?v=6kaVM2-9f3Q

At 54 seconds, it shows the guy in the black suit in the rear driver side.

If Det. Brown is the guy in the front, and the driver is certainly a patrolman, Senkel is in the back with Williams and Arce.

[Faroe Islander]

Isn´t this Shelley ?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19178&page=12  reply #174
I seem to remember the only witness seeing the shooter said he was wearing a white shirt or t-shirt ?
I am also convinced that BWF is looking at PM and can identify him or at least tell us who it is not !!
I just read that Lee Farley said: BWF would not would not id him self on the stairs ? I was shure it is BWF the first time I saw the photo there is no doubt in my mind that the man standing on top of the stairs is BWF.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

forgot to underline "Truly" as in original note)

Go and stand in the corner.

I've always been suspicous of Truly ever since, for whatever that's worth.

While you're standing over there, contemplate that however suspicious you are of Truly - it isn't enough. He is the last link in the chain and it stretches way back...

Ok dad I give up.

Good luck to good people.

Dan,

Your suspicion of Truly is well-founded. And if your suspicion was based in just gut instinct, then you have good instincts, compadre. 

Sorry about my late night attempt at humor.

I see part of your value here as keeping us all honest and on our toes. And occasionally scratching our heads or smiling at/with your undercurrents... so don't go disappearing anywhere, okay?

[GuestGuest]

I hope somebody does finally gets to the bottom of the Shelley-Senkel question.

I have never agreed with the consensus view that Bill Shelley is the guy wearing the black suit and tie who is seen opening the patrol car doors for Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce.  Especially when we have an unidentified male stood behind Williams and Arce.  Now, this guy (below) looks more like somebody who is being taken down to the station for questioning. I've never understood the logic behind the Shelley ID.

The man above is Det. Brown as confirmed by his partner's affidavit describing the activities in the basement when Oswald was shot.I was concerned that when Senkel said that Officer Brown had a car, that Brown might be a uniform cop.

jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/09/0920-002.gif

Det. Brown rode in the ambulance and stayed with Oswald's body until it hit the morgue.

Here's another photo of Det. brown. He's second from your left.
(I can't post links so just back out the spaces between the w's)

w w w.allposters.com/-sp/Dying-Assassin-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-in-Ambulance-after-Shot-by-Jack-Ruby-Dallas-Police-Station-Posters_i9360809_.htm

Page 13 of this thread has Gerda's GIF showing Brown.

educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19178&page=13

Page 12 of the same thread has a link to this vid.

w w w.youtube.com/watch?v=6kaVM2-9f3Q

At 54 seconds, it shows the guy in the black suit in the rear driver side.

If Det. Brown is the guy in the front, and the driver is certainly a patrolman, Senkel is in the back with Williams and Arce.

That's a pretty good summation and if correct it leaves us back where we started - - no Shelley.  It opens up the question again as to when and with whom Shelley rode to the station.

I'm always wary of there being no photographs of key assassination witnesses.  Mary Bledsoe and Jack E. Dougherty being the prime examples.  Bledsoe requested, and received, anonymity up to and way past her Warren Commission testimony.

[ianlloyd]

Looking at the photograph of Arce & BRW getting into the cop car, behind BRW is cop jockey and there's a guy standing behind him - is there another angle showing this guy?

Also, in the same photograph is a guy standing by the tree in the background - could this be the same guy that was standing behind Lovelady (Oswald?) In Altgens where you can see his shirt & tie?

[GuestGuest]

Looking at the photograph of Arce & BRW getting into the cop car, behind BRW is cop jockey and there's a guy standing behind him - is there another angle showing this guy?

Also, in the same photograph is a guy standing by the tree in the background - could this be the same guy that was standing behind Lovelady (Oswald?) In Altgens where you can see his shirt & tie?

Here's a copy of the Allen photo from Robin Unger's site...it has a caption mentioning Arce and Williams being transported but doesn't mention Shelley...

w w w.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=5825&fullsize=1

[GuestGuest]

I hope somebody does finally gets to the bottom of the Shelley-Senkel question.

I have never agreed with the consensus view that Bill Shelley is the guy wearing the black suit and tie who is seen opening the patrol car doors for Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce.  Especially when we have an unidentified male stood behind Williams and Arce.  Now, this guy (below) looks more like somebody who is being taken down to the station for questioning. I've never understood the logic behind the Shelley ID.

The man above is Det. Brown as confirmed by his partner's affidavit describing the activities in the basement when Oswald was shot.I was concerned that when Senkel said that Officer Brown had a car, that Brown might be a uniform cop.

jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/09/0920-002.gif

Det. Brown rode in the ambulance and stayed with Oswald's body until it hit the morgue.

Here's another photo of Det. brown. He's second from your left.
(I can't post links so just back out the spaces between the w's)

w w w.allposters.com/-sp/Dying-Assassin-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-in-Ambulance-after-Shot-by-Jack-Ruby-Dallas-Police-Station-Posters_i9360809_.htm

Page 13 of this thread has Gerda's GIF showing Brown.

educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19178&page=13

Page 12 of the same thread has a link to this vid.

w w w.youtube.com/watch?v=6kaVM2-9f3Q

At 54 seconds, it shows the guy in the black suit in the rear driver side.

If Det. Brown is the guy in the front, and the driver is certainly a patrolman, Senkel is in the back with Williams and Arce.

That's a pretty good summation and if correct it leaves us back where we started - - no Shelley.  It opens up the question again as to when and with whom Shelley rode to the station.

I'm always wary of there being no photographs of key assassination witnesses.  Mary Bledsoe and Jack E. Dougherty being the prime examples.  Bledsoe requested, and received, anonymity up to and way past her Warren Commission testimony.

Lee, trust me.... I am getting pretty good at this....



Supporting observations.:

Fort Worth Star-Telegram: OBITUARIES
‎
$2.95 -
Fort Worth Star-Telegram - May 6, 1991
James Schuyler Shelley Jr., Building contractor MANSFIELD - James Schuyler ... of Greenville; brother, William Hoyt Shelley of Irving; and six grandchildren.

Their father's stone reads "Schuyler," but 1930 and 1940 US census describes them as James S. Shelley and wife Susie. The ages on the findagrave.com entries match the census ages info,
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=shelley&GSiman=1&GScid=175060&GRid=6531140&
and I'm liking the signature comparisons, except for the "S" and the "y". See affadavit signature, "William H. Shelley"
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0492-001.gif

1930 Census: Home in 1930: Precinct 5, Grayson, Texas

[th]Household Members:[/th][th][/th]

[th]Name[/th][th]Age[/th] James S Shelley 45 Susie M Shelley 38 Clara M Shelley 19 Jimmie G Shelley 18 Alma I Shelley 16 Dorothy L Shelley 14 Jamie L Shelley 12 J S Shelley 5 William H Shelley 3 Mary D Shelley 2 [2 1/12]

View
Original
Record



View original image


1940 Census: Home in 1940: Grayson, Texas
Household Members:
[th]Name[/th][th]Age[/th]

J S Shelley	55
Susie M Shelley	49
J S Shelley	15
Hoyt Shelley	13
Mary Dell Shelley	12
Samuel Bozarth	74

My confidence level is above 90 percent, or I would have waited until I had more before I posted.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

Best 'googler' this side of the Kuiper Belt.  Results to see !  Thank you, Tom.

[GuestGuest]

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

If the Shelley whom Tom has located is identical (and I think he is, bravo Tom) to the TSBD enigma, how could he have worked in a US defense plant during the war (December '41 to '45 for the Yanks) if he was 13 - per the census - in 1940?  At war's end, he's 18 and recruited into CIA at 20?

All seems rather unlikely, if the census data are accurate.   

Also puzzling to me is the cragginess of his face in '63, when he would only have been 36 years old.  I assume some heavy smoking and drinking in the interim to explain how the bright-eyed young cherub on the left above turned into the grizzled end product on the right.

Finally, one notes in the 1930 census results, the children are listed in descending chronological order, yet beneath William at age two is Mary, age 2 1/2.  How do the same parents have two children six months apart?

Was William adopted?

[GuestGuest]

Excellent find Tom !

So this mean we can certainly cross Shelley off this list for potential PM.
It also means that Shelley is a good candidate for the gentleman in the black tie seen behind Lovelady in Altgens 6.

Now I question why Williams would say the following in his testimony:"Well, at the time I don't think Norman and Jarman came down right then. They brought Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady, a fellow by the name of Jack Dougherty, and Charles Givens later on, they brought them right behind us."...especially considering (based on the video) he was sitting right next to who we now think is Shelley.

There's something squirrely about Shelley. There's something squirrely about the whole "down to the tracks" story. There's something squirrely about having to get him away from the front door and yet having to slow down his arrival at the rear area which conflicts with Victoria Adams testimony.
And if Oswald was PM, Shelley wasn't much more than an arms length away from him and yet...never said a word.

[GuestGuest]

Can someone tell Richard Hocking at EF that Det. Levelle took Lovelady's and Given's statements.

[GuestGuest]

.......Social Security Admin. Record from Ancestry.etc

Name:	William H. Shelley
Birth:	12 Apr 1926
Death:	6 Sep 1996 - Irving, Dallas, Texas, USA
Civil:	Texas

(1940 Census page displaying JS Shelley Family, Grayson County, TX was enumerated on April 2 through 3, 1940. Hoyt Shelley's age
is accurately recorded as 13 years, nine days before his 14th birthday.)

Shelley told the WC he worked at defense plants before October, 1945 employment at TSBD. Roy Milton Jones graduated from Crozier Tech. in 1964 and there was background of Jones attending morning classes and working at a grocery store in the afternoon. Shelley may have worked at a defense plant while still attending Crozier, or he may have only worked full time after graduating in late May until the surrender of Japan triggered production halts in defense plants starting no later than September, 1945.

.........I was spared by an accident of birth from living in the southern USA and attending a militarized high school. I was unfamiliar with this form of youth indoctrination until becoming involved in JFK assassination research. Even in May, 1970, there was strong, irrational support for the Ohio national guardsmen shooting unarmed students on their own Kent State Univ. campus in Ohio.: http://www.may4archive.org/aftermath.shtml 


Cropped "Company B" photo. Lt. Hoyt Shelley Crozier Technical High School 1945 Yearbook:

[Sponsored content]