Prayer Man Poll

First topic message reminder :

Where do you stand?

If PM had to stand on the photo only, then its H&L territory. Sean, with great skill, eliminated all possible candidates other than LHO or a random stranger.

In post 630 of the EF thread < http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=42 > Sean Murphy says:

Sean Murphy wrote:I certainly will not be renaming Prayer Man 'Prayer Woman', because the frame above puts the matter pretty much beyond doubt:
 
This is Lee Oswald.
 
[DARNELL PRAYER MAN FRAME]
 
The womanly appearance is due to the fact that
a ) his sleeves are rolled up;
b ) the eye is confusing the back of a woman's head with part of Lee's torso.
 
Here's the woman in question's lower leg and foot:
 

 
If you place your finger to the screen to cover where her head should be, the chief source of the 'Prayer Woman' illusion becomes apparent.
 
This is Lee Oswald.
Just look at the hairline.

This was the final piece that sold me.

greg parker wrote:
I must admit that Sean got in touch with me about PM (as I remember it) before he ever made it public. I was dismissive of it then for similar reasons - he looks too solidly built. But the case that it was Oswald as it played out on that epic thread, persuaded me my original dismissal was wrong. I now think it's just just a combination of normal distortion within the photo and the shirt hanging out with PM standing in a manner that further accentuates that slight billowing.

Stan Dane wrote:In post 630 of the EF thread < http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=42 > Sean Murphy says:

Sean Murphy wrote:I certainly will not be renaming Prayer Man 'Prayer Woman', because the frame above puts the matter pretty much beyond doubt:
 
This is Lee Oswald.
 
[DARNELL PRAYER MAN FRAME]
 
The womanly appearance is due to the fact that
a ) his sleeves are rolled up;
b ) the eye is confusing the back of a woman's head with part of Lee's torso.
 
Here's the woman in question's lower leg and foot:
 

 
If you place your finger to the screen to cover where her head should be, the chief source of the 'Prayer Woman' illusion becomes apparent.
 
This is Lee Oswald.
Just look at the hairline.

This was the final piece that sold me.

I don't know. Maybe my eyes are going. I'm getting older.
I can glean nothing from that photo.

But PM is not necessary to prove to me LHO was not the shooter and was not
on the sixth floor. But I understand--if Sean Murphy's right--it's revolutionary.

It's doubtful a stranger from the crowd would occupy that spot. It's more likely an
employee is standing there. And Sean Murphy used the process of elimination to
eliminate every other employee possibility I guess.  

But I cannot glean anything from that photo.

steely dan wrote:If PM had to stand on the photo only, then its H&L territory. Sean, with great skill, eliminated all possible candidates other than LHO or a random stranger.

Yes, but there was no tip of the hat to H&L.

As you see on the list "Harvey Oswald" was not one of the choices.

When I first saw the photo, I thought it was Lee - right where he claimed to be at the time - but my eyes ain't what they used to be. It was Sean's dismantling of every other option that convinced me more than my eyes.

Guest wrote:I see someone voted for "A Stranger from the crowd."

Hmmm.  I wonder who cast that vote?

Anyone but Oswald, eh?  Give me strength.

Guest,
              Actually, I am one of the four people who voted for stranger in the crowd. I have based this contention on the following supporting ideas. No one has produced a verifiable photographic volume that conclusively identifies everyone in the crowd, including the Commission. Thus, to claim anyone has conclusive or even probable evidence that this person is or is not Oswald cannot in my view be accurate without repeated expert verification using enlarged photographs. I would also contend significant testimony and corroboration would be required.

I am more than willing to review any verified evidence that exists to support this idea. I support that a feasible conspiracy occurred, but that conspiracy does not require Oswald to be innocent. In my view his even an admitted patsy is still part of the plot. Oswald was not just a stranger off the street who wandered into these circumstances. He participated in deceptive operations and political practices that possibly delivered him into the hands of the Conspirators in my view.

Since the case is unsolved to claim that Oswald is innocent or guilty without substantial verifiable evidence in my view is premature.

Carmine Savastano wrote:

Guest wrote:I see someone voted for "A Stranger from the crowd."

Hmmm.  I wonder who cast that vote?

Anyone but Oswald, eh?  Give me strength.

Guest,
              Actually, I am one of the four people who voted for stranger in the crowd. I have based this contention on the following supporting ideas. No one has produced a verifiable photographic volume that conclusively identifies everyone in the crowd, including the Commission. Thus, to claim anyone has conclusive or even probable evidence that this person is or is not Oswald cannot in my view be accurate without repeated expert verification using enlarged photographs. I would also contend significant testimony and corroboration would be required.

I am more than willing to review any verified evidence that exists to support this idea. I support that a feasible conspiracy occurred, but that conspiracy does not require Oswald to be innocent. In my view his even an admitted patsy is still part of the plot. Oswald was not just a stranger off the street who wandered into these circumstances. He participated in deceptive operations and political practices that possibly delivered him into the hands of the Conspirators in my view.

Since the case is unsolved to claim that Oswald is innocent or guilty without substantial verifiable evidence in my view is premature.

Carmine, in the spirit of the upcoming Melbourne Cup Carnival (first Tuesday of November), let me offer you $10AUD so you can have a flutter. You can spend it on one race only. The PM Stakes. I've just been notified that Stranger In The Crowd has been scratched from that race but the other runners will be fit to start. Who would you put my money on?

Buell Frazier, Lee Oswald, An unknown female, An unknown female impersonator,An unknown Oswald impersonator, Larry Crafard, Roy Edward Lewis, Houston St Employe, Anyone but Oswald.

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

Carmine Savastano wrote:

Guest wrote:I see someone voted for "A Stranger from the crowd."

Hmmm.  I wonder who cast that vote?

Anyone but Oswald, eh?  Give me strength.

Guest,
              Actually, I am one of the four people who voted for stranger in the crowd. I have based this contention on the following supporting ideas. No one has produced a verifiable photographic volume that conclusively identifies everyone in the crowd, including the Commission. Thus, to claim anyone has conclusive or even probable evidence that this person is or is not Oswald cannot in my view be accurate without repeated expert verification using enlarged photographs. I would also contend significant testimony and corroboration would be required.

I am more than willing to review any verified evidence that exists to support this idea. I support that a feasible conspiracy occurred, but that conspiracy does not require Oswald to be innocent. In my view his even an admitted patsy is still part of the plot. Oswald was not just a stranger off the street who wandered into these circumstances. He participated in deceptive operations and political practices that possibly delivered him into the hands of the Conspirators in my view.

Since the case is unsolved to claim that Oswald is innocent or guilty without substantial verifiable evidence in my view is premature.

Carmine, in the spirit of the upcoming Melbourne Cup Carnival (first Tuesday of November), let me offer you $10AUD so you can have a flutter. You can spend it on one race only. The PM Stakes. I've just been notified that Stranger In The Crowd has been scratched from that race but the other runners will be fit to start. Who would you put my money on?

Buell Frazier, Lee Oswald, An unknown female, An unknown female impersonator,An unknown Oswald impersonator, Larry Crafard, Roy Edward Lewis, Houston St Employe, Anyone but Oswald.

Itchy Bum had already been scratched but I've heard a whisper that there may be a late entry fee paid for the German entire, Nosferatu. 


But he's just a shadow of his former self, and without the early favorite Stranger In The Crowd being a starter, it's hard to go past the formline of Lee Oswald. He can be skittish at the barriers, but if he gets a clean start, he'll be in the mix at the winning post. Let's hope his jockey, Rotoscoped Lovelady, keeps his nerve and doesn't need to pull the whip.

Carmine,

I think basically what Paul is asking is, if "stranger in the crowd" is your first choice, who would be your second?

greg parker wrote:Carmine,

I think basically what Paul is asking is, if "stranger in the crowd" is your first choice, who would be your second?

You take all the fun out of it, Greg, when you put it that way. You need a beer before the race starts.

Paul,

It is my job to keep you all focused.

There is no time for what you call "fun". If you cannot focus, how on god's earth do you expect to become a neurotic sycophant? 

Any more of this and the whole thread will be deleted.

You need a beer before the race starts.

Thanks for noticing!

Greg,

I am all for Deleted, but wasn't he scratched as well?

My money's on Neurotic Sycophant. Unless the jockey's from Bumfuck.

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

greg parker wrote:Carmine,

I think basically what Paul is asking is, if "stranger in the crowd" is your first choice, who would be your second?

You take all the fun out of it, Greg, when you put it that way. You need a beer before the race starts.

What in tarnation! I'm a hearin' "beer," an "fun," "stranger in the crowd," and "second choice." Well, ole Stan's got sumpin' ice cold for y'all! "Second Choice Beer" by Strangers in the Crowd! 
 

Terry W. Martin wrote:My money's on Neurotic Sycophant. Unless the jockey's from Bumfuck.

From what I hear, all the jockeys from Bumfuck ride knobs.

Okay. I think we've got the Cup sorted out. You guys in the US don't know how to live. Victorians get a freakin' public holiday for this race.

Paul,
        Here is my conundrum I attempt to never speculate, hence why I do not support conclusive guilt or innocence for Oswald. Since I am not a photographic expert I do not value my judgement in this specific matter. I suppose the next most possible in my view would be a Houston Street employee. I do not contend either of these is correct, and neither does it preclude Oswald being there. I just require substantial evidence to claim certainty.   
          
Greg,
          In my view if we are to disprove the major suppression and alterations it requires that we be open to all possibilities the evidence offers. I will take the long shot, Obsessive Inquiry in the fifth.

In my view if we are to disprove the major suppression and alterations it requires that we be open to all possibilities the evidence offers. I will take the long shot, Obsessive Inquiry in the fifth.

Thanks Carmine. I'll keep a close eye on the betting.

greg parker wrote:You guys in the US don't know how to live. Victorians get a freakin' public holiday for this race.

Yeah, rub our faces in it. We don't get any holidays due to races.

Much to Nascar's chagrin.

greg parker wrote:Okay. I think we've got the Cup sorted out. You guys in the US don't know how to live. Victorians get a freakin' public holiday for this race.

Yep, we sure do. And I must say, I have no complaints about it. 

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
        Here is my conundrum I attempt to never speculate, hence why I do not support conclusive guilt or innocence for Oswald. Since I am not a photographic expert I do not value my judgement in this specific matter. I suppose the next most possible in my view would be a Houston Street employee. I do not contend either of these is correct, and neither does it preclude Oswald being there. I just require substantial evidence to claim certainty.   
          
Greg,
          In my view if we are to disprove the major suppression and alterations it requires that we be open to all possibilities the evidence offers. I will take the long shot, Obsessive Inquiry in the fifth.

Thanks, Carmine. I am afraid there is even less substantial evidence for Houston Street Employee or Stranger In The Crowd so I really don't understand your selections. But I do understand you don't like to gamble (or speculate. Same thing I guess).
The form (for me) suggests it is Oswald in a canter but there is no such thing as a safe bet. Not in this race anyways. If its a photo finish, I think Oswald would win, albeit under protest. A protest that would be surely be upheld by the stewards.
Good luck with your bets.

Hasan Yusuf wrote:

greg parker wrote:Okay. I think we've got the Cup sorted out. You guys in the US don't know how to live. Victorians get a freakin' public holiday for this race.

Yep, we sure do. And I must say, I have no complaints about it. 

The rest of us don't do much work that day anyways.

Paul,
           The reason for my selections is because of the number of people possible in each group. If we are betting the odds are usually on the largest percentage of possible winners. While it may be that some have decided the person is Oswald without conclusive proof, it must in my view stand up to intense scrutiny. In order for our research to stand against those who might be biased or have a contradictory agenda it requires high standards of verification. 

Unlike with photographs, I do have experience in historical research, debate, and writing. So in these realms I feel reasonably adept at making feasible claims based upon substantial evidence. I do not begrudge those who choose to use other methods, I just rely on those methods easiest to verify with as little interpretation as necessary.

In my view the "anyone but Oswald" and "Oswald" choices are more improbable based on the number possible in other categories. I would also refer to the other figures suggested over the years that were incorrectly called Oswald or remain unverified.

Carmine,
while it may not be strong enough for some, I base my opinion on:

1. Oswald saying he went out to see what the commotion was about (I believe the "commotion" being referred to was the crowd cheering the approaching motorcade rather than the assassination).

2. Early newspaper reports of his being seen near a storage room on the first floor straight after the assassination and further reports that he was stopped by a cop at the front entrance as he was going to leave.

3. The fact that if he came out later than everyone else and stood behind them in the shadows, no one would have noticed him - and thus no one placed him there.

4. A stranger from the crowd would have had to bustle his way up and take a poorer viewing spot than he otherwise would have had on the street or a lower step, thus making the "stranger from the crowd" theory unlikely (though not impossible).

5. The fact that every other white male worker from inside the building can be accounted for elsewhere.

6. The figure is consistent in clothing and general appearance to Oswald. 

7. The fact that the Lovelady dog bit, doesn't mean the PM dog will too.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
           The reason for my selections is because of the number of people possible in each group. If we are betting the odds are usually on the largest percentage of possible winners. While it may be that some have decided the person is Oswald without conclusive proof, it must in my view stand up to intense scrutiny. In order for our research to stand against those who might be biased or have a contradictory agenda it requires high standards of verification. 

Unlike with photographs, I do have experience in historical research, debate, and writing. So in these realms I feel reasonably adept at making feasible claims based upon substantial evidence. I do not begrudge those who choose to use other methods, I just rely on those methods easiest to verify with as little interpretation as necessary.

In my view the "anyone but Oswald" and "Oswald" choices are more improbable based on the number possible in other categories. I would also refer to the other figures suggested over the years that were incorrectly called Oswald or remain unverified.

Your percentage of possibility with your chosen categories can be misleading, Carmine. Safety in numbers does not necessarily apply in this case. This photo is of a spectator on the steps of the TSBD. While I also don't begrudge your methods, they should at least take that salient fact into account when talking about probabilities, rather than dismiss the obvious ones for lack of a better photograph.

I would add to Greg’s list above:

8.  The fact that BW Frazier has prevaricated on the identity of Prayer Man. In other words, he hasn’t denied PM was Oswald when the question was put to him. In the context of his admission that he is scared of telling all he knows about the assassination, that speaks volumes.

9.  The implications of the jotting, ‘out with Bill Shelley in front’, in Fritz’s interrogation notes. That  effectively proves that LHO was in the vicinity of the TSBD doorway during the assassination. Else, how could he know Shelley was there? (And the fact that Shelley was there has been confirmed by BWF’s recent remarks to Albert Rossi). And since LHO was almost certainly in the vicinity of the doorway, which figure, other than PM, in the photographic and eye witness records of the assassination, could be him?

10.  Then there’s the whole array of interlocking evidence and arguments presented by Sean Murphy on the PM thread. Sean made a point of saying here at the time something to the effect that he chose to present his arguments in the adversarial setting of the Education Forum rather than in a forum such as this so that his arguments would be exposed to as wide a spectrum of scrutiny as possible, including that of the most extreme lone nutters. Nobody was able to present a credible rebuttal of his thesis and the most usually vociferous lone nutters remained for the most part silent during the discussion. Therefore, by the rules of rational discourse, Sean won hands down.

Carmine,

You seem to be downplaying the importance of ‘the whole array of interlocking evidence and arguments presented by Sean Murphy on the PM thread’ that supports the photographic evidence of PM being Oswald. You seem to be suggesting that it’s mostly or all just about the photographic evidence. I might well be wrong in my interpretation of your position and if I am, please correct me.

And finally, a question for you: Have you read the ‘Prayer Man thread’ in its entirety?