Prayer Man

First topic message reminder :

Original Prayer Man thread at the Education Forum
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20354-oswald-leaving-tsbd/

___________________________________________________________________________________________________


G'day,
I have to say I find it oh so mildly amusing reading some of the comments, thoughts and rants associated on other forums regarding Prayer Man / Oswald on the front steps. It's sad really, watching people who have spent a lifetime married to an idea or a theory, only to witness that idea or theory shattering into a thousand pieces and not accepting the inevitable singular conclusion which is staring them in the face. To Greg Parker, Sean Murphy and all the other amazing researchers following the path of truth in this case I tips me Lid.

Mick

This is from the report of FBI agent O' Flaherty. It is evidece Flaherty obtained about Oswald's time in Youth House:

"He does whatever is asked of him completely and without comment."

"He usually sits by himself"

"He does not encourage conversaton."

"He does not communicate with his supervisors OTHER THAN WHEN HE IS ASKED A DIRECT QUESTION, then his answer is very terse."

"Lee is a very quiet boy who says very little to anyone and no one bothers him."

"Usually on the floor, he can be found sitting IN THE CORNER by the window"

"The boy is very quiet and withdrawn when not activated by any program"

"Most of the time the boy can be seen sitting alone, minding his own business."

"When he becomes involved in any MINOR ALTERCATON, he will become very hostile and beligerent."

"Avoids contact with members of the group"
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10461#relPageId=66

These traits lasted his entire, short life.

And they explain perfetly, his actions on Nov 22, 1963.

He slipped quietly out well after everyone else, and stood in the corner. He tried whenever possible to avoid notice and later, after his arrest, he volunteers practically nothing and only answers questions asked when he is comfortable doing so. Those questions not answered, are not swept aside out of guilt, but because of the way his mind works. His brain is not wired the same as other peoples. 

IN THE CORNER. It IS him. A lifelong habit.

Something a simpleton like Brian will not ever comprehend.
Well done Greg, right on the wonga!!!

"IN THE CORNER. It IS him. A lifelong habit."

Not to take away from this profoundly insightful observation, but as fate would have it, also in the corner by the window. Coincidental yes, but interesting to note.

Someone notified my via the ROKC page on FB that our Stan's book has been cited on numerous wikipedia pages.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Oswald%20prayer%20man%20Stan%20Dane%20&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&fbclid=IwAR2pE_mJm7-KPKV9HkCz8gtVDzYms6NKAUfGBGGBdIvYTFQBCIz5uauSz3A

That is some achievement for a self-published book about a then obscure "corner" of research!

We are making inroads... slowly, but surely. 

A film or documentary has to be the end game as the best means of getting mass media attention which in turn, puts pressure on the law keepers and makers...

Well done to @StanDane for the great writing, to  @TerryWMartin for producing a great end product, and to all the usual suspects for the imput to the book and the support.

Yes it is quite an achievement indeed. Hope we will continue to make impact more and more.

Apparently Stone's doc discusses the women at the fourth floor window, some of whom went down the stairs immediately after seeing the shots while one stayed on the 4th floor landing.  None of them saw Oswald coming down those stairs, but the one who stayed behind encountered the cop of the "lunch room incident" coming up them by himself.

Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.  Isn't obvious Prayerman beautifully finishes off the point about where he was?  And the fact that NBC refuses access to the Darnell film brings the whole thing up to the present.  Is there anything the media hasn't done or won't do the cover up the murder?

The 4 hour version of Stone's work is due in Feb.  Is it too late to convince DiEugenio and Stone to add this info to their case?  DiEugenio has talked before about the importance of interesting a new generation by showing relevance to today.  I know he respects you, Greg.  Is it too late?

RO

Good points,Roger.

Roger Odisio wrote:Apparently Stone's doc discusses the women at the fourth floor window, some of whom went down the stairs immediately after seeing the shots while one stayed on the 4th floor landing.  None of them saw Oswald coming down those stairs, but the one who stayed behind encountered the cop of the "lunch room incident" coming up them by himself.

Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.  Isn't obvious Prayerman beautifully finishes off the point about where he was?  And the fact that NBC refuses access to the Darnell film brings the whole thing up to the present.  Is there anything the media hasn't done or won't do the cover up the murder?

The 4 hour version of Stone's work is due in Feb.  Is it too late to convince DiEugenio and Stone to add this info to their case?  DiEugenio has talked before about the importance of interesting a new generation by showing relevance to today.  I know he respects you, Greg.  Is it too late?

RO

The Stroud document  notes almost as an afterthought that "After Mrs Adams went downstairs, Mrs Garner saw Mr Truly and the policeman come up."

I believe that is true. Accept it was not Truly and Baker. They never made that trip until the alleged recreations. The two she saw were Truly and Lummy Lumpkin on the way up to report Oswald was missing- after Truly and Lt Kaminski had cleared him to leave. 

I'd be happy to be wrong, but imo  it is too late. Those with the power get to control the narraive recorded for history. Ony those with the money and the connections get to produce a counter-narrative that gets mass attention. And that counter-narrarive will not always come from the best sources. It will come from the groups who have amassed the most brownie points with the right people. We are largely locked out of that. 

Yes, Jim di has gone on record as supporting our work and I am grateful for that. But when push comes to shove...

Let me give one example.the publication of a letter signed by 50 authors, actors etc. as a prelude to the petition they promoted - my name had been put forward as being one of those 50. That suggestion was shouted down.

To add insult, one of the names they were all happy to have on it was Doug "The Alien Presence" Caddy. 

We simply piss too many people off. Sometimes without even trying.  

At some point, the facts have to be promoted over - or dspite personalities. Cliched as it is, I honestly do live in hope. What's the use of hanging around, otherwise?

To self proclaimed experts on all things jfk, PM is a puss case. They never saw it and that is something they really would rather not admit to. Better to make movies and public appearances, garner the attention that they can, and parade around as the experts on all things jfk. From my point of view, it is they who are the puss case.

Didn't know about your correction of which cop came up the stairs but (1) Oswald didn't go down them and (2) it just adds to obscene pile of lies that is the Warren Report.

Everything else you say is true but I don't think it's quite that cut and dried.  Else why would there be room for the optimism you profess?

Sure, the presently powerful control the narrative and write the first draft of history.  I suspect you've read Caitlin Johnson who writes about some aspect of this just about every day.  The good news tho is the major media in the US is crumbling, going from one blunder to the next (Iraq invasion support, Russiagate, Steele dossier to cite some recent examples).

That's where Stone and his doc comes in.  He casts clear doubt that Oswald fired the shots from the sixth floor.  But where *was* he?  Why is the corrupt propaganda machine that passes for the media hiding evidence that may help answer that question? 

Hopefully Stone has cast enough doubt on the official story to get people interested.  But what to *do*?  Well, for starters go after NBC to see if Oswald can finally be exonerated.  Then we can set about understanding what happened that day and how we got to war machine mess we are in today.

Btw, the letter you're referring to, I think, was signed only be Americans (more than 60 of them), except for Len Osanic, a Canadian, so he gets a pass.  Perhaps good ol American chauvinism played a part in your exclusion.  Besides your ability to piss of the self important.

RO

Roger, thanks for the reply.

Just for clarification, the point of inserting the Lumkin and Truly march up the stairs is that it definitely happened. If the Baker-Truly charge also happened, then Garner should have been talking about seeing Truly go up twice - with two different cops. 

Garner has long been put forward as the one witness who did actally see Truly and Baker on those stairs. Take her off that witness list and it is one more nail in the coffin of the phony 2nd floor lunchroom encounter.

The hope I hold out is not that anyone within this "community" will help promote Oswald's alibi to the masses via TV or cinema or major news/magazine coverage. We have tried that route. PM simply ruins too many CT fantasies. 

My hope is that we can eventually find a producer or production company willing to invest the time and money to get this off obscure corners of the internet and into lounge-roooms or cinemas. 

Myself and Mick Purdy (and all thanks to Mick) have gone close to doing this a couple of times,only to be thwarted the first time by outside and unonnected events - and the second time, simply by the production company deciding they did not have the resources to do the job properly. 

Also... Len was not the only "outsider"... Brit John Simpkin was also on the list.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Special:Ask/-5B-5B-2DHas-20witness::Truth-20And-20Reconciliation-20Committee-20on-20the-20Assassinations-20Of-20The-201960s-5D-5D/-3FDescription/mainlabel%3DWitness/limit%3D50/offset%3D50/format%3Dtable/sort%3D/order%3D

Trust me. It was spite that kept me off it.  But hindsight is everything. Now that I know some of the names on it, they did me a favor.

Your ambition (good luck) is another reason to try to enlist Stone, who already has an international reputation, to focus on where Oswald was during the shooting by introducing Prayerman.  I suspect he didn't want to do this to avoid charges of speculation.  Stone:  we are focusing on facts; "conspiracy theories have become conspiracy facts".

But Stone wouldn't be saying he knows the answer.   We now know that when asked Oswald did say he went outside to watch the parade.  Having established he wasn't on the 6th floor during the shooting, should we believe him?  By hiding the filmed evidence of who was on the steps outside the BD, NBC has become a roadblock to the truth.  Broaching the topic would be a way to talk about NBC, for once, being a news organization instead of a propaganda arm of the government.  Stone wouldn't shy away from doing that would he?

I remember you wrote a letter to NBC a couple of years ago asking for access to the original film of the steps.  I assume they ignored you.  Did you ever decipher the name or names of the person(s) preventing access?  Or in what part of the bowels of NBC they reside?

RO

Have you seen this, posted today by Greg Doudna at the Ed Forum?

"So that is a theory of the case in which Oswald as Prayer Man is not only correct but could become possibly more comprehensible.
But now I have a question (and please forgive if this has already been answered elsewhere): according to the Sixth Floor Museum, statement from Gary Mack of March 25, 2015 via Darrell Hastings, there is a first-generation copy of the Darnell film in their custody. I understand you believe better-quality information could be obtained from that film than presently accessible. Yet for some reason there is no access for research purposes to that film, citing "copyright". I see this from Gary Mack:
"NBC took the original Wiegman and Darnell films from the Dallas NBC affiliate to New York following the assassination weekend. Whether the network still has the original Darnell film is unknown, but as a former employee I know the affiliate does not have it or a copy. Nor does Jimmy Darnell.
"Fortunately, a first-generation 16mm copy print was made in Dallas over that weekend and it is in the Museum's collection; however, the Museum cannot do anything with it until copyright issues are resolved. It'll happen, and sooner rather than later." (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20354-oswald-leaving-tsbd/page/109/)
 
When I see this, I think, whoooah! What is going on?
Obviously, for starters, "sooner rather than later" has turned out, now in 2021 six years later, unfulfilled.
All I can say is: it is just customary and basic protocol in fields of scholarship working on primary materials or archaeological artifacts, that qualified researchers are to be allowed access, by permission. That is just normal and supported by professional ethics statements of scholarly societies.
So my question is very simple, in two parts: (a) who owns the copyright on that film? and (b) has a qualified researcher sought formal permission from the copyright owner (not the Sixth Floor Museum or Gary Mack), and been formally refused, directly by the copyright owner? 
I see reference to an ROKC petition, etc. but that is not quite an answer directly to the "a" and "b" of my question. 
If this has not been done, I have a modest suggestion: have a legal firm research and identify and establish who is the legal copyright owner, and write a letter on behalf of you (Andrej Stancak) to that legal copyright owner, asking for the access you need, for research purposes. Get an answer. 
If the answer is "no", publicize it to high heaven. I have been through this whole issue of lack of access to valuable research materials, with the Dead Sea Scrolls. I was filmed on a Nova television program in the fall of 1991 as the first student in the world to view heretofore-inaccessible microfilms of the unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls which had just been publicly released by the Huntington Library in California to the world. The action of the Huntington Library broke the access issue in that case.
But back to the Darnell film sitting in the Sixth Floor Museum. Maybe the answer--if the copyright owner is NBC, if the copyright owner, NBC, was asked--might be yes.
Could this access issue with the Darnell film be as simple as: a request to the copyright owner has not yet been made?
Is it possible it would be as simple to get access as that?"

Who has the copyright?  NBC?  Has the museum been asked whether they have cleared up the copyright question posed by Gary Mack six years ago so as to allow access to their copy?

Apparently Doudna has seen your letter to NBC, Greg.  Did they refuse you or simply ignore the  letter?  Perhaps it's time to consider Doudna's suggestion to have a law firm write to NBC (if they have the copyright) on your behalf, or for Andrej Stancak, or a list of researchers.  As Doudna says, to get an answer this time.  There are a number of JFK researchers who are lawyers. 

Roger Odisio wrote:Have you seen this, posted today by Greg Doudna at the Ed Forum?

"So that is a theory of the case in which Oswald as Prayer Man is not only correct but could become possibly more comprehensible.
But now I have a question (and please forgive if this has already been answered elsewhere): according to the Sixth Floor Museum, statement from Gary Mack of March 25, 2015 via Darrell Hastings, there is a first-generation copy of the Darnell film in their custody. I understand you believe better-quality information could be obtained from that film than presently accessible. Yet for some reason there is no access for research purposes to that film, citing "copyright". I see this from Gary Mack:
"NBC took the original Wiegman and Darnell films from the Dallas NBC affiliate to New York following the assassination weekend. Whether the network still has the original Darnell film is unknown, but as a former employee I know the affiliate does not have it or a copy. Nor does Jimmy Darnell.
"Fortunately, a first-generation 16mm copy print was made in Dallas over that weekend and it is in the Museum's collection; however, the Museum cannot do anything with it until copyright issues are resolved. It'll happen, and sooner rather than later." (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20354-oswald-leaving-tsbd/page/109/)
 
When I see this, I think, whoooah! What is going on?
Obviously, for starters, "sooner rather than later" has turned out, now in 2021 six years later, unfulfilled.
All I can say is: it is just customary and basic protocol in fields of scholarship working on primary materials or archaeological artifacts, that qualified researchers are to be allowed access, by permission. That is just normal and supported by professional ethics statements of scholarly societies.
So my question is very simple, in two parts: (a) who owns the copyright on that film? and (b) has a qualified researcher sought formal permission from the copyright owner (not the Sixth Floor Museum or Gary Mack), and been formally refused, directly by the copyright owner? 
I see reference to an ROKC petition, etc. but that is not quite an answer directly to the "a" and "b" of my question. 
If this has not been done, I have a modest suggestion: have a legal firm research and identify and establish who is the legal copyright owner, and write a letter on behalf of you (Andrej Stancak) to that legal copyright owner, asking for the access you need, for research purposes. Get an answer. 
If the answer is "no", publicize it to high heaven. I have been through this whole issue of lack of access to valuable research materials, with the Dead Sea Scrolls. I was filmed on a Nova television program in the fall of 1991 as the first student in the world to view heretofore-inaccessible microfilms of the unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls which had just been publicly released by the Huntington Library in California to the world. The action of the Huntington Library broke the access issue in that case.
But back to the Darnell film sitting in the Sixth Floor Museum. Maybe the answer--if the copyright owner is NBC, if the copyright owner, NBC, was asked--might be yes.
Could this access issue with the Darnell film be as simple as: a request to the copyright owner has not yet been made?
Is it possible it would be as simple to get access as that?"

Who has the copyright?  NBC?  Has the museum been asked whether they have cleared up the copyright question posed by Gary Mack six years ago so as to allow access to their copy?

Apparently Doudna has seen your letter to NBC, Greg.  Did they refuse you or simply ignore the  letter?  Perhaps it's time to consider Doudna's suggestion to have a law firm write to NBC (if they have the copyright) on your behalf, or for Andrej Stancak, or a list of researchers.  As Doudna says, to get an answer this time.  There are a number of JFK researchers who are lawyers. 

Roger,

Just so you know and I can't speak for the others here but I will tell you that exhaustive work has been done over a long period of time to gain access to the original Darnell footage. 

It does exist, or at least that's what NBC would have us believe but permission to view or handle the film has been officially denied.

Ed Ledoux, Bart Kamp, and Greg Parker along with others have all contributed in trying to gain access to that piece of evidence. All efforts have have been unsuccessful.

When you say " publicise it to high heaven" who would you have us choose to do that? You see Roger, while your questions are all valid extensive work has already been done in trying to pry the footage away from the owners. 

This case is a hard sell, trust me on this I know. There are very few people on this planet willing to lend an ear to this intriguing and important part of the case. It should be Headline News but it's not - and that is probably the best indicator of where we sit at present. 

Notwithstanding Stones latest Doco, there's not much interest it would seem in a near on 60 year old cold case. Much less in the guy who has been sold convincingly by the Mainstream Media as the lone nutter assassin for the same period of time.

We need a leg up from somewhere, hopefully that will happen.

Roger Odisio wrote:Have you seen this, posted today by Greg Doudna at the Ed Forum?

"So that is a theory of the case in which Oswald as Prayer Man is not only correct but could become possibly more comprehensible.
But now I have a question (and please forgive if this has already been answered elsewhere): according to the Sixth Floor Museum, statement from Gary Mack of March 25, 2015 via Darrell Hastings, there is a first-generation copy of the Darnell film in their custody. I understand you believe better-quality information could be obtained from that film than presently accessible. Yet for some reason there is no access for research purposes to that film, citing "copyright". I see this from Gary Mack:
"NBC took the original Wiegman and Darnell films from the Dallas NBC affiliate to New York following the assassination weekend. Whether the network still has the original Darnell film is unknown, but as a former employee I know the affiliate does not have it or a copy. Nor does Jimmy Darnell.
"Fortunately, a first-generation 16mm copy print was made in Dallas over that weekend and it is in the Museum's collection; however, the Museum cannot do anything with it until copyright issues are resolved. It'll happen, and sooner rather than later." (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20354-oswald-leaving-tsbd/page/109/)
 
When I see this, I think, whoooah! What is going on?
Obviously, for starters, "sooner rather than later" has turned out, now in 2021 six years later, unfulfilled.
All I can say is: it is just customary and basic protocol in fields of scholarship working on primary materials or archaeological artifacts, that qualified researchers are to be allowed access, by permission. That is just normal and supported by professional ethics statements of scholarly societies.
So my question is very simple, in two parts: (a) who owns the copyright on that film? and (b) has a qualified researcher sought formal permission from the copyright owner (not the Sixth Floor Museum or Gary Mack), and been formally refused, directly by the copyright owner? 
I see reference to an ROKC petition, etc. but that is not quite an answer directly to the "a" and "b" of my question. 
If this has not been done, I have a modest suggestion: have a legal firm research and identify and establish who is the legal copyright owner, and write a letter on behalf of you (Andrej Stancak) to that legal copyright owner, asking for the access you need, for research purposes. Get an answer. 
If the answer is "no", publicize it to high heaven. I have been through this whole issue of lack of access to valuable research materials, with the Dead Sea Scrolls. I was filmed on a Nova television program in the fall of 1991 as the first student in the world to view heretofore-inaccessible microfilms of the unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls which had just been publicly released by the Huntington Library in California to the world. The action of the Huntington Library broke the access issue in that case.
But back to the Darnell film sitting in the Sixth Floor Museum. Maybe the answer--if the copyright owner is NBC, if the copyright owner, NBC, was asked--might be yes.
Could this access issue with the Darnell film be as simple as: a request to the copyright owner has not yet been made?
Is it possible it would be as simple to get access as that?"

Who has the copyright?  NBC?  Has the museum been asked whether they have cleared up the copyright question posed by Gary Mack six years ago so as to allow access to their copy?

Apparently Doudna has seen your letter to NBC, Greg.  Did they refuse you or simply ignore the  letter?  Perhaps it's time to consider Doudna's suggestion to have a law firm write to NBC (if they have the copyright) on your behalf, or for Andrej Stancak, or a list of researchers.  As Doudna says, to get an answer this time.  There are a number of JFK researchers who are lawyers. 

Roger, whatever you can think of to do, could be helpful. But chances are, it has already been tried.

I started the petition.  Got very few sigs.

I wrote to NBC. They ignored.

I tried to get the National Archives to acquire the films under the JFK Act. They claimed they don't have the power to do that - yet I know for a fact they acquired paper documents themselves from a Secret Service agent after being tipped off that he had them.

I believe it was Bart and Ed who contacted the relevant dept of NBC via email to negotiate obtaining the films. After initially seeming to get somewhere, it was stopped by higher-ups. They were offered only crappy multi-generational versions. 

I think it was Ed and Bart who also tried to get Stone's production company to obtain it for us. That got very short shrift.

Finally, this year, I spoke to a producer for a small production company here in Australia about doing an episode on JFK for a series they produce here on historical and current cold cases and mysteries.  This was arranged through contacts Mick has in the industry. They were interested and the producer said if they went ahead, they culd try and obtain the films. They eventually decided however that they were too small and under-resourced to tackle a huge case like this.

To obtain those films, we need the might of the media on our side. To get the media on our side, we need a fucking ceebrity to jump on board. Do you know any? Because the media is not interested in how good the information is you have to present. They want personalities to bring in the viewers for advertizing dollars. If you are not a known name, then you better at least be a fucking tin-foil hatted lunatic - because they willl also draw an audience.

If I sound angry and frustrated about the situation, that is only because I am.

Just imagine the whiplash this will cause the media the day it's known that the footage showing Oswald on the steps has been buried in their vaults all the years they've participated in the coverup. It is a very serious problem. I really do wonder what it would take for them to fall on their swords and let this get out. Maybe that's what Stone knows and so he doesn't even try.

Somewhat surprising that Jim Di did not include Prayer Man in the documentary. As script writer he could have easily done it if he wanted too.

Thanks for the details.
 
In retrospect I think ownership of the Darnell film is pretty clear.  Storing the film at NBC headquarters in NY doesn't change the fact that Dallas station KXAS (formerly WBAP), an NBC affiliate, owns the film shot by its employee Jimmy Darnell. It is responsible under FCC rules for its use or lack thereof.  Not NBC.
 
KXAS is a private corporation specifically granted use by the FCC of the airwaves owned by the public, provided it meets the established public interest standard, i.e., it's broadcast serves "the educational and informational needs of Americans".  KXAS via Darnell created the information contained in the film.  I'm pretty sure they showed it as part of their coverage of the murder that day in Nov.  It was and, as it turns out, still is news.  By concealing it now rather than making it public (as a "news organization" ferchrissakes), or not allowing others to do so, I believe they violate their FCC license (assuming a showing of the importance to the public of the information the film contains).  Apparently they just renewed their license this past summer and it's good for 8 years, but that shouldn't preclude challenges.  
 
NBC, on the other hand, is just a network of stations, that over the last 20 years has morphed into a small cog in a multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate known as NBC Universal.  That in turn was owned first by GE and now by Comcast and includes a myriad of domestic and international properties.   When you guys were rejected by NBC it was by a flunky who reports to a flunky who reports to a flunky, etc. in the conglomerate.  No surprise that is a blind alley.  
 
This is were the Stone doc is important.  If it can create interest in people's minds about where Oswald was at the time of the shooting, once it's clear he wasn't on the 6th floor, (which the doc does well), pressure can be increased on KXAS to make the film available by citing its obvious news value. If PM is Oswald, the Warren report collapses.  

Think of all the time and energy folks have expended over the years trying to get the CIA to release its files  The Darnell film may turn out to be much more important than any tidbit remaining in the files that the CIA hasn't already destroyed.  Plus the CIA's "national security" reason for concealing things has worked and is likely to continue to do so.  What reason can KXAS give to avoid releasing the Darnell tape?  Anyone with chits with Jim Di, now is the time to call them in and make this argument.  
 
As to the Museum's first generation copy, 6 years ago Gary Mack hid behind a bogus uncertainty about copyright to dodge the request for access.  While hinting the question would be resolved forthwith.  Now is the time to press the question again.  KXAS recently (I think it was in 2016) gave the Museum a slew of audio tapes on the assassination it had been storing in its basement.  The Museum spokesman exclaimed at the time how delighted they were to get and they were going to make them available to researchers.  https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/jimmy-darnell-longtime-nbc-5-photojournalist-dies-at-82/41550  What's the difference between those and the Darnell film?

The Museum needs to ask KXAS for the film original.  I expect they will say no.  They are the lowest rung on the NBC empire after all.  But that refusal will be a clear violation of their license, the kind of formal refusal Doudna says he is looking for.  I'm not sure how important it is to get the original instead of the copy the Museum says it has. 
 
Given the state of the US courts, framing the issue as a legal question is, I know, less than satisfactory.  But some of you have found out how easy it is to dismiss or ignore individual requests.  Which is why I keep harping on trying to get Jim and Oliver help build public interest.  They're trying.  The last few weeks it seems like everywhere I go there is Oliver giving an interview about the doc.

Roger,
you wrote; I'm not sure how important it is to get the original instead of the copy the Museum says it has. 


I know this much if we were to obtain the original Darnell footage and have that scanned at the highest resolution possible then we'd all pack up and go home - Job's done. I'm that confident. My background is in film and TV. I've viewed Stan Danes copy of the PM frame on a high res retina monitor and I can assure you that the unidentified figure standing to BWF's right hand side atop of the stairs in the far left hand side corner of the landing looks remarkably like Lee Oswald, and I can assure you the figure is not a woman - The figure is not wearing a wig, and is most certainly not over weight, at least not by a whopping 300lb's...(You reading this Brian?)


Roger, judging by your posts you seem to have a good grasp of the Networks hierarchy and how it operates. You offer very good suggestions on how it might be possible to approach the dilemma of prying the film from the owners. But it takes money and unfortunately a leg up from somewhere. Yes having Stone and Jim D on board would be advantageous - how do you propose we do that? It's a fantastic idea - but the reality is  that's so much harder than it sounds...


We need help - we need a group of professionals to take on the cause and fight to have the film released. I will keep looking for an opening somewhere in the hope that we can bring this to the attention of those who matter.

I propose a name change to the frame from the Darnell footage currently referred to as PM or Prayer Man.

I'll leave that for others to decide with regards to any name change at the forum, but just so you know any dealings I will be having with the media about this frame from now on will carry a different name. i.e.; Alibi, Framed, or similar.

From my past experience when dealing with Film and TV people who are not familiar with the case or the evidence which supports Oswald having been on the front steps of the TSBD immediately after the shooting is that they become completely perplexed and distracted by the name Prayer Man so much so that it detracts from the importance of the image's value and what it means to Oswald's alibi.

Oliver Stone despises the media for what they have done to him.  In a recent discussion about his new doc he said an important reason JFK the movie got the reaction that led to the JFK Records Act was he appended a statement at the end explaining for how long the records were supposed to be locked away.  

Put those together and what do you have?  Evidence that may exonerate Oswald and torpedo the WR is locked away by media, without this time even having to offer a justification.  Should be right up his alley

I suspect, however, Stone did not include Oswald's alibi or PM because his major theme was that he was presenting conspiracy facts, not theories.  He didn't want to have defend what at this point seems to him like conjecture.  

But that's not what we're suggesting.  Right after Goldberg says on the doc that the testimony of the secretaries is powerful evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting, this can be inserted to follow up the point:

"So where was he?  We don't know at this point.  Oswald said during his interrogation that after eating lunch he went outside  to see the parade.  But no recording was made of what he said.  We have only scraps of notes taken by a couple of questioners to go on.  Should we believe him?

Fortunately a local reporter, Jimmy Darnell started filming immediately after he heard the shots. At one point his camera swings back to catch a fleeting glimpse of the spectators on the steps in front of the School Book Depository.  There, tucked into the corner on the top step, stands a figure that looks remarkably like Oswald.  Quite possibly modern enhancement techniques can tell us if that figure is Oswald.

But Dallas station KXAS and its parent, NBC Universal, has locked the film away and won't let anyone see it.  Just like the original assassination records.  Except this time it's not the government hiding something it's a news organization (!) hiding evidence in the crime of the century.  KXAS holds a broadcast license that requires it to "serve the educational and informational needs of America".  They must allow access to the film.

Just like the public finally got to see the Zapruder film 12 years later, it's time see what the Darnell film shows.

A follow up point.  Get a lawyer to file a complaint at the FCC against KXAS for hiding the Darnell film instead of treating it like the news it is.  This would be contingent on the claim that the film is news based on what we have learned since the assassination.  Stone is probably the key to establishing that.

Make no mistake NBC have intimated that they will not allow anyone to handle the original film - exercising their rights as the owners of the footage.
The fear of damage to the historical film is given as a reason for this stance.

They have at certain moments offered to supply mediocre sub optimal video copies of that film at a cost to the person requesting said film.

When Stone needed archive footage for his Documentary or JFK the Movie he was supplied with transfers - Video tape copies of the original films. It is not an uncommon practice. 

So NBC will and have claimed that the original film is not to be handled - Period. So unless someone in the States can bring about a highly publicised high profile lawsuit against NBC for withholding possible evidence in the case then it's a stalemate to be sure.

So they admit the film is an an important historical document.  We couldn't agree more.  That together with other information we have learned over the years could be the basis for a challenge that KXAS is not treating it as such, thereby violating the public interest standards of its license.

But, NBC Universal says, it's an  important historical document that no one is allowed to see or make use of in order to preserve it as a document that no one can see or use.  I sure hope we can get to a point where they have spout such jibberish to defend their actions and those of its subsidiary.

We still have a ways to go to get there.  And I can't even figure out how to send an email to Jim Di.

And I can't even figure out how to send an email to Jim Di.

Try here.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/contact-us

Roger Odisio wrote:So they admit the film is an an important historical document.  We couldn't agree more.  That together with other information we have learned over the years could be the basis for a challenge that KXAS is not treating it as such, thereby violating the public interest standards of its license.

But, NBC Universal says, it's an  important historical document that no one is allowed to see or make use of in order to preserve it as a document that no one can see or use.  I sure hope we can get to a point where they have spout such jibberish to defend their actions and those of its subsidiary.

We still have a ways to go to get there.  And I can't even figure out how to send an email to Jim Di.

So they admit the film is an an important historical document. 


They haven't really admitted to anything other than to say that the original film will not be handled. The assumption that it is somehow of some sort of importance to NBC is just that an assumption. Is the film important? Well yes to us it is for obvious reasons. But we should remember the footage we are interested in is and always has been just one strip of film taken by a staff news cameraman Jim Darnell back in '63 on the day of the assassination. For the best part of 50 years the 120 or so frames of his film we are interested in were considered quite meaningless.

But we do see, thanks to the likes of Sean Murphy, 3 to 4 frames from that coverage as possibly the most important find this case has seen in near on 60 years. But that's the issue at least for me - it's trying to convince those that matter that's exactly what's at stake here. I suspect NBC or any other outlet would have the same response to requests for viewing original films for the purposes of study or research - and that is the originals would not be handled if there are transfer copies already available. 

The fact that NBC has offered to allow us to purchase a 2nd or 3rd generation  transfer copy of that footage to my mind pretty much negates the notion that they're hiding something or at least that's what they'll claim. In my opinion for whatever that's worth the only way we are ever going to get our hands on the original film is if an extremely persuasive case is made to those who matter i.e. Politicians, celebrity, Media outlets, etc. that the film could be an important piece of evidence in a cold case that may possibly lead to the exoneration of the man who was charged with the murder of Kennedy.