Prayer Man Poll

Richard Gilbride wrote:I personally liked Robert Harris' reply, and thought like he that it was an insult to be lumped in with McAdams & Von Pein simply because he had reservations about accepting Prayer Man as Oswald. It may have been an offhand remark, but remarks like that abound around here, where there is a tendency to gang-think behavior, discouraging independent thought & opinions.

Richard Gilbride wrote:You'd expect, or half-expect, one of the TSBD employees on the steps, or Oswald himself in the DPD hallways, to have mentioned it.

Richard Gilbride wrote:Greg, the person I'm referring to in the photo is in the background on the extreme right talking to a policeman. He's the Oswald lookalike and I didn't state nor intend to infer that any tramp looked like Oswald.

I was with the Prayer Man ID from the beginning, at Lancer in 2010. But have to acknowledge that there isn't enough to take it to the bank. One problem I reiterated for deepsnow earlier in this thread is that doubters won't accept photo-evidence that isn't unequivocal, and won't have the patience nor interest to listen to logic that eliminates all possible candidates but Oswald. What I drew from Robert Harris' post is that the lack of corroboration doesn't assist one bit in the PM ID as Oswald. You'd expect, or half-expect, one of the TSBD employees on the steps, or Oswald himself in the DPD hallways, to have mentioned it.

So one could even go with this fellow in the tramps photo as having actually been PM. I wouldn't myself, I don't see a strong enough resemblance to even the grainy Darnell image to say this fellow was up in the corner on the TSBD landing. But I'm saying a case could be made. And that doesn't strengthen the certitude of the photo ID of the Darnell image.

Stan, what I was alluding to in the gang-think comment is the me vs. the world scenario that has developed on the lunchroom thread. I should save further comments for the new & improved lunchroom thread, to discuss the new essays, when they appear. Lest I get angry and post a youtube of an enraged cougar.

Stan Dane wrote:One more thing: 

No lone nutter would embrace my speculation.

Therefore I love it!

Stan Dane wrote:

Richard Gilbride wrote:You'd expect, or half-expect, one of the TSBD employees on the steps, or Oswald himself in the DPD hallways, to have mentioned it.

I would've expected a lot of things to have happened with this case that didn't happen. But not this.
 
In the few minutes he had before the press, I WISH Oswald would have blurted out his entire alibi to the whole world. God, I wish it! But he didn't and I understand his not doing so.
 
Why do it? He had all the time in the world to tell his side of the story, didn't he? He was in protective custody, wasn't he? Was he stupid, or did he have enough sense to wait for the right time. His biggest shock, IMO, was that he was actually in custody. He wasn't thinking about his alibi.
 
He was an FBI/CIA informant. He wasn't trained to spill his guts like some Chatty Cathy doll at the pull of a string (assuming you believe he was on the government payroll). Maybe he still thought about keeping certain important operational details under wraps right up to the end. Just sit tight and keep your effen mouth shut for now. His alibi was the last thing he had to worry about.
 
This is speculation, I know. But "expecting" people to talk or do anything under certain situations is speculation too. You like your speculation. I like my mine. 

To me, Oswald not talking is perfectly reasonable.

It's a damn shame that Sean's work was tainted by the insanity of Fetzer and Cinque prior to the interest in PM developing because there are elements of the Altgens 6 tomfoolery that have unfortunately permeated Sean's work and other people's minds concerning this as we saw in the comments section of Greg's article in his local newspaper.

greg parker wrote:

It's a damn shame that Sean's work was tainted by the insanity of Fetzer and Cinque prior to the interest in PM developing because there are elements of the Altgens 6 tomfoolery that have unfortunately permeated Sean's work and other people's minds concerning this as we saw in the comments section of Greg's article in his local newspaper.

Was speaking to Chuck Ochelli off air prior to broadcast earlier and one of the things he said to me was, (paraphrasing) I saw where you believe that stuff about Oswald on the steps in the photo and I'm going to have to disagree with you about that.

In the brief time I've known Chuck it has become clear he's no dummy, and has a good grasp of the case. My instincts told me he'd seen something (maybe the news article) just briefly and assumed it was to do with Altgens. I was right. I think he was quite relieved to find out I agree Altgens shows Lovelady, and this was from a different film showing a different individual. I think the relief was derived from understanding I'm not associated with the supporters of the doppleganger Lovelady theory.

terlin wrote:

greg parker wrote:

It's a damn shame that Sean's work was tainted by the insanity of Fetzer and Cinque prior to the interest in PM developing because there are elements of the Altgens 6 tomfoolery that have unfortunately permeated Sean's work and other people's minds concerning this as we saw in the comments section of Greg's article in his local newspaper.

Was speaking to Chuck Ochelli off air prior to broadcast earlier and one of the things he said to me was, (paraphrasing) I saw where you believe that stuff about Oswald on the steps in the photo and I'm going to have to disagree with you about that.

In the brief time I've known Chuck it has become clear he's no dummy, and has a good grasp of the case. My instincts told me he'd seen something (maybe the news article) just briefly and assumed it was to do with Altgens. I was right. I think he was quite relieved to find out I agree Altgens shows Lovelady, and this was from a different film showing a different individual. I think the relief was derived from understanding I'm not associated with the supporters of the doppleganger Lovelady theory.

I am amazed how many people are still trotting out the Altgens photo claiming it is Oswald. I had thought that chimera was settled decades ago. But I suppose with the lousy media coverage on the better work being done being difficult to find for so many people people are liable to believe anything.

A couple of months ago I came across a blog proclaiming "Proof of Oswald's innocence" and it was Altgens.

Pathetic. But what can we do but try and spread the word one person at a time.

I sure hope your interview can have some effect in this regard.

Goodbye wrote:Terry,

I think there is a possibility that the Altgens 6 photo and its history still bears relevance in all of this to some extent.

The FBI shit a brick when this photo surfaced and took it very seriously.

I've always had reservations about what it depicts and do actually believe it shows evidence of touching up.  The unfortunate situation that The Nutty Professor and Ralph Cinque, bullshitters extraordinaire, created around this photograph has turned any rational discussion of it, and its place in history, radioactive.  Fetzer et al have done the same thing with the Zapruder film.

But there do actually exist pertinent question about James Altgens most famous photograph.  There are copies of it printed in certain newspapers after the assassination that look a bit strange compared to the one we are all used to.  There does appear to be anomalies within it.  The negative appears to have long gone walkies.  

I agree it is Billy Lovelady.  My question is whether the photograph was interfered with to make it look more like Billy Lovelady and completely put to bed any speculation that it could have been Lee Oswald, especially now we know the distinct possibility exists that he may have been stood no more than six feet away?

After my long battles with Cinque I seem to have dispensed with all of the details I was once an expert on because never in all my life have I had to deal with anything like the absurdities that Cinque flung my way...

terlin wrote:Al,

I recall seeing the resurrection of the Altgens photo late last spring and figured it had to do with the increase in interest heading up to the 50th. I did not pay much attention to it.

Perhaps someone had wind what Sean was up to and was trying to derail it before it was even revealed. And sure, in Sean's presentation is not just about the picture but I should imagine most people won't spend the time to go through the evidence he has presented.

A picture is worth a thousand words and bashing a "front entrance picture" might have been all that was needed as a pre-emptive strike against Sean's front entrance picture.

Something stinks for sure.

illegitimi non carborundum

Goodbye wrote:Do a search for 'Oswald in TSBD doorway' and see what pops up.  Hint: Sean Murphy won't be in your results.

Richard Gilbride wrote:Further to the question of the Oswald lookalike in the tramps photo,

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/3tramps.htm

I don't think the case for photo-alteration/forgery is very good at all. Richard Trask interviewed the Fort Worth Star Telegram's George Smith, who said he'd gone from Ft. Worth to Parkland and then, about 2:00 PM, to the Sheriff's Office on Houston Street.
By the time of his photo, Oswald was in custody, and Lovelady was giving his affidavit at DPD HQ. Even the theoretical Lee Oswald was driving away from the El Chico parking lot. The fellow in the photo is someone entirely different.

The policeman may possibly be Herbert Sawyer, who wore a white cap that afternoon. The fellow he's talking to seems to be affiliated with the TSBD, and it's a tad strange that he's in an Oswaldesque pose, as if arguing some point with the policeman. A wild guess would be someone who worked at the old warehouse and came over to see what was going on. This is the point in the day when people were being dismissed from work.

The lack of photos of TSBD employees is the major hurdle preventing ID of this fellow.

Richard Gilbride wrote:The problem with relying on Harkness' testimony for establishing a time for the photo is it conflicts with measurements of shadow angles against the TSBD during the sequence of 7 tramps photos. They establish a time very near 2:00 PM. One example of this analysis is in the Richard Bartholomew article "The Gun That Didn't Smoke". Scroll down about 1/3 of the way at

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html

Have to agree that the cop looks too young to be Sawyer. But don't know who else it could be. The resolution isn't that good and couldn't rule him out.