Prayer Man Poll

Thu 19 Sep 2013, 11:08 pm

First topic message reminder :

Where do you stand?

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 4:33 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:Had I known that so many would be offended that I did not agree perhaps I would not have stated anything.

I am not offended. This was a poll to see what members thought. I think PM is Oswald because I believe the evidence for it is compelling, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's usually good enough in a court of law. I know what you think and that's OK.

PS: The "Guest" you quoted several posts earlier was Lee Farley. During the time he said this last November, we had a couple of trolls pass through (vagrants from Duncan's), and it was precisely during this time when votes first popped up in the non-Oswald categories. Since Sean Murphy was taking so much shit from LN goons like these over at Stinky's, Lee in effect said "no wonder." It was directed at them, not reasonable people with reservations. Just a little context.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 6:23 am

Goban Saor wrote:

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
Again, "in your opinion" my view undermines Sean, like your other contention I would dispute that as well. We all have the right to our views based on evidence, despite what others contend. I am not trying to prove it is not Oswald, nor is, it is not my contention.

I refer to the large chances for error with so many unidentified people present, and conclusive evidence does exist yet to prove the idea. Attempting to degrade my view because it does not agree with yours is not proof of anything.

It just seemingly attempts to change the topic from Goban's claim of Prayer Man being conclusive. The evidence and prior statements of Sean should be considered as well. Whether it is officials, critics, or advocates, perhaps some should not question other people's views if they do not want an honest answer.

If my views are incorrect I am willing to refine them, I wonder if others are as well.

Carmine,

You say, ‘It just seemingly attempts to change the topic from Goban's claim of Prayer Man being conclusive.’

That seems like a very clever ‘divide and conquer’ tactic. Indeed there’s a nasty edge to it that doesn’t reflect well on you. But I don’t want to be diverted by that now.

Yesterday I presented conclusive evidence that Prayer Man was Oswald, namely:

In the circumstances, the only possible reason for BW Frazier not denying that Prayer Man was LH Oswald is that Prayer Man is LH Oswald.

You replied to this among other things in one of your posts yesterday by saying:

'One problematic witness is not conclusive in my view. If someone does not answer a question to our satisfaction that does not render a non-answer being support for our ideas.'

That is a clever answer that evades the substance of the issue. The first sentence is the old ‘shooting the messenger’ ploy, a time honoured method of shutting out any information that a person doesn’t want to hear.

The second sentence misrepresents the issue. The issue is not about Frazier not answering a question to our satisfaction. It’s about Frazier not answering a question. Period.

‘to our satisfaction’ doesn’t come into it.

It’s about Frazier not answering a crucial question that was put to him. And it’s about the inescapable logical implication of that.

Your evasion and misrepresentation is further indicative of the validity of my reasoning. If my reasoning were flawed you would be able to properly identify how it was flawed. You have failed to do so.

Goban,
When you state "divide and conquer", the shooting the messenger ploy, evasion, misrepresentation, and other speculative ideas you presented, yet I still noticed no conclusive evidence. Just your view of certain other circumstances. Those are personal attacks aimed at me, not just my methods or ideas to distract from your lack of conclusive evidence.

We disagree, yet I do not need to question your motives to do so. Additionally, I would refer you to the Federal Rules of Evidence as to what is evidence that can be admitted. Evidence that is required to prove something in a court of law. If we are to reopen the case, substantial legal evidence would be helpful. I notice you do not comment on that. Prayer Man to many here is considered probable, that is fine, but probable is not conclusive.

Stan,
I appreciate your response and context offered, and that you are not offended. As I prior stated I do not discount Sean's work or ideas, I just do not agree they are definitive. You may be correct Stan and if so I'm willing to admit my error. However where you and Greg would seek to reasonably discuss the matter, others would presume to know my intentions and reasoning based upon their ideas, not substantial evidence.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 6:37 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
Again, "in your opinion" my view undermines Sean, like your other contention I would dispute that as well. We all have the right to our views based on evidence, despite what others contend. I am not trying to prove it is not Oswald, nor is, it is not my contention.

I refer to the large chances for error with so many unidentified people present, and conclusive evidence does exist yet to prove the idea. Attempting to degrade my view because it does not agree with yours is not proof of anything.

It just seemingly attempts to change the topic from Goban's claim of Prayer Man being conclusive. The evidence and prior statements of Sean should be considered as well. Whether it is officials, critics, or advocates, perhaps some should not question other people's views if they do not want an honest answer.

If my views are incorrect I am willing to refine them, I wonder if others are as well.

Carmine, I am not denying you the right to your view nor am I in the business of degrading it. I suggest not only that you should stand by it, but exercise your right to defend it using all the conclusive evidence you are able to muster. Show me why you believe PM is a Stranger from The Crowd or a Houston St Employee. Sean has shown you why he believes PM is Oswald so if you believe PM is a Stranger In The Crowd or a Houston St Employee, then you should do the same. This 'refer to the large chances for error with so many unidentified people present,' is not substantial evidence of anything. PM is standing on the steps of the TSBD along with other TSBD employees. What are the chances he might be a TSBD employee?
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I voted in this poll but if did I would've chosen Oswald. If my views are incorrect I'd be only too happy to refine them also. I've done it many times before with other aspects of this case. This would be no different. Its not like I'll die a slow death if I am wrong about this. If that were the case I would've been dead long ago.

Paul,
Indeed i did not make a choice in lieu of the another, it was the best choice among those available in my view. I do not seek to prove or disprove this idea, I merely explained why I chose as I did. Since I am not committed to either proving or disproving this hypothesis I do not need to offer evidence of its strength or weakness.

Based upon what I have reviewed I do not agree it is conclusive and thus not a fact as some would contend. I will defend contentions I make, this is simply my view on the current discussion. Again I do not claim that Sean or his work is not credible or compelling to some, it just in my view is not conclusive.

You are not "taking me to task" you are defending an idea as conclusive without me attacking the idea but offering possible alternative choices and restating what the creator originally thought of the hypothesis, that it is not conclusive. If others are to be convinced it is not us who must conform to the idea but the evidence should convince us of the idea in my view. As before I do not claim it is not Oswald or is Oswald but what I found most likely in the choices. My view can be refined with evidence but not claims or allusions to why I am wrong for answering a question that was asked.

Carmine, based on your methods, your own selections or contentions are even less conclusive than Sean's. You opted for a stranger or Houston St Employee. The photographic evidence is clear that PM is standing on the steps of the TSBD alongside TSBD employees. You've opted for "outsiders" and they are not what I would consider "safe bets". You may not agree with Sean but his research has certainly clouded your judgment whether you want to admit to that or not.
Just for the record, Carmine. I am not defending an idea. I am attacking your idea. I hope you don't take that personally, mate.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 7:20 am

Carmine,

You skipped over my last post in quoting the previous one.

Since I addressed the contents of your first paragraph in the skipped over post I won’t comment on it further here.

You cite the Federal Rules of Evidence. One rule of evidence that you have persistently flouted here, it seems to me, is the burden of proof rule. It is a rule that also pertains to discussions and debates. Paul touched on it earlier with you.

In the face of the mass of evidence pointing to Prayer Man being LH Oswald, you seem to be adopting a ‘blanket denial’ approach. In the context of a meaningful discussion if you want your position to be considered ‘viable’, the onus is on you to disprove the evidence you dispute.

Instead you rely on the likes of this:

'what legal evidence, not just ideas, exist to conclusively prove the Prayer Man contention? How many photographic experts have verified the idea? Has it ever been submitted to officials or the media for reply? You claim it is conclusive, yet where is the conclusive evidence?'

This is not a detailed rebuttal of anything. In implying the non-existence of evidence that requires rebuttal, it is a misrepresentation. Just like your ‘rebuttal’ of my Frazier argument as I pointed out above.

And in this context, the ‘stranger in the crowd’ contention smacks of Russell’s Teapot.

I repeat that I stand over my analysis of Frazier’s non-reply until such time as it is logically refuted.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 7:35 am

Carmine,

I suspect this debate would be at least a little different if I had given an option of "inconclusive" and you had chosen that,

But what's done is done.

Regarding whether this is evidence in and of itself and how it might play in a court-room.

I see it this way - the clearest PM image being presented to BWF on a witness stand with him under oath and cross-examination. His testimony on PM is the evidence.

The case for showing him the image would be told to the court and would be all the points I raised earlier along with any I missed. Under those circumstances, BWF could say "I don't know" -- but the case for it being PM would not be lost on a judge and/or jury.

What we have to understand and accept is that the case for conspiracy does not rest on this alone. It would be part of a whole package of evidence - or avenues to obtain or create evidence through testimony. The key to obtaining testimony is knowing the right questions...

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 8:32 am

Paul,
I do not take it personally so long as no one directs their insults at me personally. I have no problem that we disagree, and you are free to have your opinion of my methods. The difference in my view is I am not claiming something is conclusive without conclusive evidence. I am not claiming that Sean is wrong, I am just offering my view that the idea is not definitive. I do not claim regarding this specific issue that my investigation is more compelling that Sean's, because I have read about and only stated it is not conclusive, not impossible. In my view it is open to reasonable question, as all contentions should be.

I do not endorse photographic ideas without substantial evidence, repeated expert analysis, and consideration of the many examples of prior mistakes by similar claims. Consider the hundreds of unidentified spectators, and that creates sufficient room for doubt. I wish you best in your research despite our disagreement.

Goban,
The "likes of this" as you refer to is called reasonable deductive inquiry in my view. Relying on the FRE and other legal guidelines strengthens our case and evidence. Relying on personal views without conclusive evidence in my view does not. I am just as critical of all the Commission's many deficient claims and assertions. I do not presume to be able to divine the motivations of those who disagree with me via speculation based on a evidentiary disagreement.

The burden of proof is upon those who make the contention, not those who might question it. If a contention cannot endure reasonable questions and critical ideas it is not a conclusive as you might imagine. This is why it is reasonable to contend other ideas without substantial evidence. Such as portions of the President's (Warren) Commission.

I would not claim that my contention is conclusive as you do, since neither of us has presented conclusive evidence. However, feel free to if you like. Reading into the non words of another is not substantial inquiry in my view. Just because Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante refused to answer questions about the assassination to the HSCA does not implicate them in it. Only substantial evidence can accomplish that.

Greg,
Indeed, it should be a wide array of corroborating evidence, including all the contending portions of official reports. Some ideas will be verified, some will not, it is the strongest supported by evidence that are most persuasive. I value your judgement and that of others here and am willing to remain open minded about the issue. Yet I retain my skepticism, it has served me well thus far. I just hope those who disagree are willing to consider the fact they may be incorrect. We all shall be at times.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 8:55 am

Carmine,

As I have already refuted every point you make in the section of your post addressed to me, no further reply from me is necessary.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 9:28 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:The burden of proof is upon those who make the contention, not those who might question it. If a contention cannot endure reasonable questions and critical ideas it is not a conclusive as you might imagine. This is why it is reasonable to contend other ideas without substantial evidence. Such as portions of the President's (Warren) Commission.

The burden of proof is upon the government to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty, and that there was no conspiracy. Period. They are the ones "making the contention," as you say. Oswald still has the presumption of innocence. No POS Warren Report can take that away. Oswald said he didn't do it. No evidence places him on the sixth floor. He said he was down in front. The earliest, most reliable statements suggest he was telling the truth. There is photographic evidence that (to me and others) strongly suggests he was telling the truth. The government has so royally bastardized everything (i.e., evidence chains of custody, proper procedures ignored, incomplete investigations conducted, etc.) that it's a sick joke. So I have a bias when I look for anything exculpable as far as LHO is concerned. He deserves it. The official story does not.

That's how I see it. The government (and their boot-licking sycophants) need to STFU, reopen this son of a bitch, and this time DO IT RIGHT!

PS: I'm not saying the Warren Report is 100% wrong. It's a tad better than a broken clock, which is right twice a day.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 10:28 am

Stan,
I do not disagree the presumption of innocence and burden of proof that Oswald was guilty was upon the Commission and in my estimation they failed. The substantial contending evidence does grant Oswald in my view reasonable doubt. However, the Prayer Man contention alleges something as well. It too is subject to reasonable doubts unless it is has substantial evidence.

In my view it is the critical periods of the Commission I have found based upon most contending evidence. Indeed it should be re-opened but we cannot let our will to see it done lead to definitive claims without definitive evidence.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 10:29 am

Goban Saor wrote:Carmine,

As I have already refuted every point you make in the section of your post addressed to me, no further reply from me is necessary.

Goban,
Believe what you like, prove what you can. Claiming to have settled the matter without substantial evidence is precisely the reason I doubt your methods.

Sat 18 Oct 2014, 5:49 pm

greg parker wrote:Carmine,

I suspect this debate would be at least a little different if I had given an option of "inconclusive" and you had chosen that,

But what's done is done.

Regarding whether this is evidence in and of itself and how it might play in a court-room.

I see it this way - the clearest PM image being presented to BWF on a witness stand with him under oath and cross-examination. His testimony on PM is the evidence.

The case for showing him the image would be told to the court and would be all the points I raised earlier along with any I missed. Under those circumstances, BWF could say "I don't know" -- but the case for it being PM would not be lost on a judge and/or jury.

What we have to understand and accept is that the case for conspiracy does not rest on this alone. It would be part of a whole package of evidence - or avenues to obtain or create evidence through testimony. The key to obtaining testimony is knowing the right questions...

Greg,

I don’t see how putting Frazier into a witness box could advance our knowledge of this element of the case – the question of whether PM is Oswald – one whit.

He would either again prevaricate, or he would confirm that PM is Oswald – more likely the former.

In this situation prevarication and confirmation are the same because, as I have already explained, the only possible reason for such prevarication is that PM is Oswald.

He has effectively precluded the third possibility, the possibility that he would deny that PM is Oswald. Because if PM weren’t Oswald he would have denied it already. If he did actually deny it on the witness stand we would have to conclude that his change of mind resulted from ‘pressure’ – the kind of pressure that he himself has spoken of.

Frazier’s testimony is crucial to solving the PM problem and he has already given it to us. Why prolong the uncertainty?

Sun 19 Oct 2014, 9:59 am

My quick 2 bob's worth. If the the figure in the photo is unconnected to the TSBD, why stand there?. Dealy Plaza had any number of better vantage points.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 12:15 am

Goban Saor wrote:

greg parker wrote:Carmine,

I suspect this debate would be at least a little different if I had given an option of "inconclusive" and you had chosen that,

But what's done is done.

Regarding whether this is evidence in and of itself and how it might play in a court-room.

I see it this way - the clearest PM image being presented to BWF on a witness stand with him under oath and cross-examination. His testimony on PM is the evidence.

The case for showing him the image would be told to the court and would be all the points I raised earlier along with any I missed. Under those circumstances, BWF could say "I don't know" -- but the case for it being PM would not be lost on a judge and/or jury.

What we have to understand and accept is that the case for conspiracy does not rest on this alone. It would be part of a whole package of evidence - or avenues to obtain or create evidence through testimony. The key to obtaining testimony is knowing the right questions...

Greg,

I don’t see how putting Frazier into a witness box could advance our knowledge of this element of the case – the question of whether PM is Oswald – one whit.

He would either again prevaricate, or he would confirm that PM is Oswald – more likely the former.

In this situation prevarication and confirmation are the same because, as I have already explained, the only possible reason for such prevarication is that PM is Oswald.

He has effectively precluded the third possibility, the possibility that he would deny that PM is Oswald. Because if PM weren’t Oswald he would have denied it already. If he did actually deny it on the witness stand we would have to conclude that his change of mind resulted from ‘pressure’ – the kind of pressure that he himself has spoken of.

Frazier’s testimony is crucial to solving the PM problem and he has already given it to us. Why prolong the uncertainty?

Goban, I'm not sure where you're coming from there mate.

This is tactical and strategic war to get history to reflect the facts at least as much as that is possible. Doesn't really matter what he says on the stand - though a confirmation would be tremendous. It's not needed though. He is just the tojan horse to present the PM case.

We live in a world of rules and laws - a legal framework around which we organize ourselves and decide on the evidence, what has taken place in certain significant events. I want my kids to read the facts; not an officially sanctioned fairy tale, and you, me and others here being convinced of x, y, and z is not going to get the history books rewritten. Or for that matter, get any justice that still can squeezed out, to be squeezed out - whether that's in the form of compensation for those left behind and adversely affected by illegal acts, or whether it is punitive action against any particular person or persons.

The war is a bit one-sided because we are an ill-equipped and squabbling rabble without any power.

But I like the underdog role. And I thoroughly believe that the pen can be harnessed as a mighty weapon.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 1:30 am

Greg,
Your reasoning is why I recommended this place on my website. We must use the verified evidence to construct a feasible case that most opposing claims cannot evade. In my view the only way to counter official suppression is to gather the most compelling evidence to expose it.

Rabble? I would give us all at least occasionally insightful peasant status. Smile

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 7:32 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:Greg,
Your reasoning is why I recommended this place on my website. We must use the verified evidence to construct a feasible case that most opposing claims cannot evade. In my view the only way to counter official suppression is to gather the most compelling evidence to expose it.

Thanks you, Carmine.

Rabble? I would give us all at least occasionally insightful peasant status.

Origin of RABBLE
Middle English rabel pack of animals
First Known Use: 14th century

Origin of PEASANT

Middle English paissaunt, from Anglo-French paisant, pesaunt, from pais, paiis country, from Late Latin pagensis inhabitant of a district, from Latin pagus district; akin to Latin pangere to fix — more at pact

First Known Use: 15th century

We are too wide-spread to be peasants geek

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 7:41 am

greg parker wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:

greg parker wrote:Carmine,

I suspect this debate would be at least a little different if I had given an option of "inconclusive" and you had chosen that,

But what's done is done.

Regarding whether this is evidence in and of itself and how it might play in a court-room.

I see it this way - the clearest PM image being presented to BWF on a witness stand with him under oath and cross-examination. His testimony on PM is the evidence.

The case for showing him the image would be told to the court and would be all the points I raised earlier along with any I missed. Under those circumstances, BWF could say "I don't know" -- but the case for it being PM would not be lost on a judge and/or jury.

What we have to understand and accept is that the case for conspiracy does not rest on this alone. It would be part of a whole package of evidence - or avenues to obtain or create evidence through testimony. The key to obtaining testimony is knowing the right questions...

Greg,

I don’t see how putting Frazier into a witness box could advance our knowledge of this element of the case – the question of whether PM is Oswald – one whit.

He would either again prevaricate, or he would confirm that PM is Oswald – more likely the former.

In this situation prevarication and confirmation are the same because, as I have already explained, the only possible reason for such prevarication is that PM is Oswald.

He has effectively precluded the third possibility, the possibility that he would deny that PM is Oswald. Because if PM weren’t Oswald he would have denied it already. If he did actually deny it on the witness stand we would have to conclude that his change of mind resulted from ‘pressure’ – the kind of pressure that he himself has spoken of.

Frazier’s testimony is crucial to solving the PM problem and he has already given it to us. Why prolong the uncertainty?

Goban, I'm not sure where you're coming from there mate.

This is tactical and strategic war to get history to reflect the facts at least as much as that is possible. Doesn't really matter what he says on the stand - though a confirmation would be tremendous. It's not needed though. He is just the tojan horse to present the PM case.

We live in a world of rules and laws - a legal framework around which we organize ourselves and decide on the evidence, what has taken place in certain significant events. I want my kids to read the facts; not an officially sanctioned fairy tale, and you, me and others here being convinced of x, y, and z is not going to get the history books rewritten. Or for that matter, get any justice that still can squeezed out, to be squeezed out - whether that's in the form of compensation for those left behind and adversely affected by illegal acts, or whether it is punitive action against any particular person or persons.

The war is a bit one-sided because we are an ill-equipped and squabbling rabble without any power.

But I like the underdog role. And I thoroughly believe that the pen can be harnessed as a mighty weapon.

Greg,

You say, ‘Goban, I’m not sure where you’re coming from there mate.’

What I’ve said is perfectly clear. You have failed to point out what is unclear about it. And as nobody else has done so either, its validity stands.

That’s the way it’s supposed to be in ‘the world of rules and laws’ as you put it. Presumably the rules of rational discourse apply in discussion forums.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 8:34 am

Goban,

I never said it wasn't clear. I was wondering about where you expect it to lead. If your only interest is in satisfying yourself, then I guess it does not have to go any anywhere at all. I'm not averse to that option. In the end, it may be the one we all have to settle for.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 1:35 pm

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
I do not take it personally so long as no one directs their insults at me personally. I have no problem that we disagree, and you are free to have your opinion of my methods. The difference in my view is I am not claiming something is conclusive without conclusive evidence. I am not claiming that Sean is wrong, I am just offering my view that the idea is not definitive. I do not claim regarding this specific issue that my investigation is more compelling that Sean's, because I have read about and only stated it is not conclusive, not impossible. In my view it is open to reasonable question, as all contentions should be.

I do not endorse photographic ideas without substantial evidence, repeated expert analysis, and consideration of the many examples of prior mistakes by similar claims. Consider the hundreds of unidentified spectators, and that creates sufficient room for doubt. I wish you best in your research despite our disagreement.

You probably don't want to claim that much, Carmine, but judging by your selection in the poll, it is quite clear that you think your investigation to be the more compelling of the two.
We definitely disagree on that.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 2:29 pm

greg parker wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:

greg parker wrote:Carmine,

I suspect this debate would be at least a little different if I had given an option of "inconclusive" and you had chosen that,

But what's done is done.

Regarding whether this is evidence in and of itself and how it might play in a court-room.

I see it this way - the clearest PM image being presented to BWF on a witness stand with him under oath and cross-examination. His testimony on PM is the evidence.

The case for showing him the image would be told to the court and would be all the points I raised earlier along with any I missed. Under those circumstances, BWF could say "I don't know" -- but the case for it being PM would not be lost on a judge and/or jury.

What we have to understand and accept is that the case for conspiracy does not rest on this alone. It would be part of a whole package of evidence - or avenues to obtain or create evidence through testimony. The key to obtaining testimony is knowing the right questions...

Greg,

I don’t see how putting Frazier into a witness box could advance our knowledge of this element of the case – the question of whether PM is Oswald – one whit.

He would either again prevaricate, or he would confirm that PM is Oswald – more likely the former.

In this situation prevarication and confirmation are the same because, as I have already explained, the only possible reason for such prevarication is that PM is Oswald.

He has effectively precluded the third possibility, the possibility that he would deny that PM is Oswald. Because if PM weren’t Oswald he would have denied it already. If he did actually deny it on the witness stand we would have to conclude that his change of mind resulted from ‘pressure’ – the kind of pressure that he himself has spoken of.

Frazier’s testimony is crucial to solving the PM problem and he has already given it to us. Why prolong the uncertainty?

Goban, I'm not sure where you're coming from there mate.

This is tactical and strategic war to get history to reflect the facts at least as much as that is possible. Doesn't really matter what he says on the stand - though a confirmation would be tremendous. It's not needed though. He is just the tojan horse to present the PM case.

We live in a world of rules and laws - a legal framework around which we organize ourselves and decide on the evidence, what has taken place in certain significant events. I want my kids to read the facts; not an officially sanctioned fairy tale, and you, me and others here being convinced of x, y, and z is not going to get the history books rewritten. Or for that matter, get any justice that still can squeezed out, to be squeezed out - whether that's in the form of compensation for those left behind and adversely affected by illegal acts, or whether it is punitive action against any particular person or persons.

The war is a bit one-sided because we are an ill-equipped and squabbling rabble without any power.

But I like the underdog role. And I thoroughly believe that the pen can be harnessed as a mighty weapon.

My kids don't need no stinking history books, Greg. Those things just keep repeating themselves every new edition. History books should be bunk.
Lets start recording history. Not write about it.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 3:06 pm

Paul,

what you're suggesting is what I'd refer to as "metahistory"

Metahistory - Approaches to History and the Uses of History
Metahistory is a collection of subjects related to the study of history, including historiography (the writing of history and the history of historical study), the tools of historical investigation, approaches to history and the uses of history. Whether you want to learn history, teach it, investigate it in depth, write about it or simply have fun with it, look here for insight and resources.
http://historymedren.about.com/od/metahistory/

It is also what I regard as what we do here.

I want to get beyond that, because no one is held to account if we leave the status quo as is.

I look at it this way: what if a whistle-blowers sat on the information he/she obtained because stuff everyone else, I have the truth and I can pass it on to my kids?

Nothing changes. The corruption and lying and the deceit go on unchecked. I don't see this as any different. The reasons for doing it are multi-faceted. Correcting history/justice/changing the concept of government secrecy/accountability to name four.

But as I said to Goban, if in the end I can only satisfy myself, I'll live with that (and pass it on to my kids so at least they learn to question)

I'm not saying my way is right and everyone else is wrong. I'm just saying it's my way - full stop.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 9:30 pm

greg parker wrote:Goban,

I never said it wasn't clear. I was wondering about where you expect it to lead. If your only interest is in satisfying yourself, then I guess it does not have to go any anywhere at all. I'm not averse to that option. In the end, it may be the one we all have to settle for.

Greg,

I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re saying here. I’d like to deal with just one point for now if I may. It concerns my analysis of Frazier not denying that Prayer Man is Oswald. I’ll call it the Frazier/PM analysis for the nonce.

When you say, ‘I never said it wasn’t clear’, are you referring to my Frazier/PM analysis? And if you are saying that my analysis is clear, do you mean that you consider it to be valid?

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 10:25 pm

Goban Saor wrote:

greg parker wrote:Goban,

I never said it wasn't clear. I was wondering about where you expect it to lead. If your only interest is in satisfying yourself, then I guess it does not have to go any anywhere at all. I'm not averse to that option. In the end, it may be the one we all have to settle for.

Greg,

I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re saying here. I’d like to deal with just one point for now if I may. It concerns my analysis of Frazier not denying that Prayer Man is Oswald. I’ll call it the Frazier/PM analysis for the nonce.

When you say, ‘I never said it wasn’t clear’, are you referring to my Frazier/PM analysis? And if you are saying that my analysis is clear, do you mean that you consider it to be valid?

Goban,

yes, I understood that part - and yes, I consider it valid for what I think I will hereafter for the sake of clarity refer to as our exercise in metahistory (refer to previous definition).

What I was trying to get my head around is this part I don’t see how putting Frazier into a witness box could advance our knowledge of this element of the case – the question of whether PM is Oswald – one whit.

If we don't take it to court, where do we take it? Apparently nowhere. If so, what is the point, apart from satisfying our own curiosity?

Putting him on the stand is not about advancing our knowledge through his testimony (unless he suddenly has a change of heart). It is a tactical way of presenting the PM case for the larger purpose of ...... fill in your own blanks (or not). I have already laid my purposes/aims out.

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 10:51 am

Greg,

Thanks for that clarification. That means we agree that we have conclusive evidence in Frazier’s testimony that Prayer Man is Oswald.

I won’t pretend that the question you ask, ‘where do we take it?’ is an easy one to answer. I have some ideas swirling around in my head and I’ve jotted stuff down but nothing very coherent.

Stuff like the truth being the most powerful weapon but without people to first acknowledge it and then uphold it nothing will change. So acknowledging and speaking the truth about Prayer Man is an important first step. Mahatma Gandhi’s term ‘Satyagraha’ meaning ‘truth force’ or ‘soul force’ etc but nothing more concrete than that.

And so long as it is left as a mere possibility or even probability that Prayer Man is Oswald we are stuck there going round in circles. Once we have accepted the conclusive evidence that he is Oswald, only then can we think about where that takes us. Once we have empowered ourselves with the weapon of truth then we can think about the tactics and strategies.

As for what those tactics and strategies might be I haven’t come up with anything new.

As it’s well past midnight here, I’ll have to let it percolate overnight and probably beyond before I come back with anything constructive.

I just wanted to get back to you before hitting the scratcher to say thanks for your unequivocal reply.

Good night up here. Good morning down there.

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 11:41 am

greg parker wrote:......Putting him on the stand is not about advancing our knowledge through his testimony (unless he suddenly has a change of heart). It is a tactical way of presenting the PM case for the larger purpose of ......

Under oath on the witness stand, a person is under some constraint to tell the truth. Whether he would tell the truth or not, or just say "I don't know," he would know he was going on public record and there is at least the possibility of a penalty for perjury. That public record becomes part of the historical record, so one way or the other, down the line it will be known whether he was being truthful or not. He can say whatever he wants in interviews, just like anybody else can.

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 8:12 pm

Dan,

I agree that getting Frazier into the witness box is important for those reasons and, of course, for the purpose of eliciting what he knows about aspects of the case other than the Prayer Man aspect. I also agree with the overall aim of this forum of getting the JFK assassination case reopened.

However, it’s worth bearing in mind that, as described by James Douglass (p. 498, The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease), that on December 8^th 1999 a Memphis jury’s verdict found that Dr Martin Luther King Jr ‘was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agencies of his own government’.

Douglass continues:

I can hardly believe that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect, scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, “Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?”

That is a stark illustration of what we’re up against – almost total public indifference to the truth about the evil forces that really rule the US and the world. Why is that? ‘Know thine enemy’, the ancient text says. Do we not need to agree on who or what the enemy is before deciding on tactics and strategies?

Prayer Man Poll

Who is Prayer Man?

Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll

Re: Prayer Man Poll