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

Ed.Ledoux wrote:

Nice images, Ed. That's exactly what I've been seeing since 2013. Of all the reasonably possible candidates, no one else's face fits the unidentified man standing by himself in the corner but Lee's. Period. Almost like a simple IQ test.
 
That the work here of Parker, Murphy, Kamp, Ledoux, Purdy, ROKC et al.—solid evidence that goes far beyond just the convincing images—that it has been belittled, maligned, or in most cases ignored, taught me that facts by themselves often do not change people minds. If facts and sound reasoning based on evidence conflict with a person's worldview, they summarily dismiss it in various ways, or attack it. (Question: If we eventually get clearer images of PM that approach Ed's images above, do you think there will still be people who don't believe? I do.)
 
I see this continuously at play in the world around me. Virtually no narrative that I hear from official channels or from the media is ever correct. I have to dig for the source data. I've seen people speaking factually in response to official positions, media claims, etc., and then being banned/shunned/deplatformed for spreading lies and disinformation. I saw an example of this recently where this guy was quoting from an official publicly-available document and silenced for spreading disinformation! I guess because the Agency's document he was quoting from was at odds with their current official position. The point was he was ridiculed by the media for speaking the truth.
 
I've strayed far afield here so I'll just leave it at that. But the scale of this amazes me. It's a regrettably rare person who is influenced by facts over emotion.
 
What the hell, I'll digress some more. I've used the example Galileo before. Galileo had the gall and temerity to assert that the earth was NOT the center of the universe and he had an enormous body of evidence to back it up. The Church refused to "see" and he was declared guilty of "vehement suspicion of heresy." Under threat of torture, he was compelled to recite and sign a formal abjuration:
 
I have been judged vehemently suspect of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun in the center of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth is not at the center of same, and that it does move. Wishing however, to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church.
 
Tradition has it that, after abjuring, Galileo mumbled, "And yet it moves."
 
Galileo was placed under house arrest and died almost ten years later in 1642. Some Grand Duke wanted to bury him in a prominent place next to his relatives, but due to his condemnation, the Church objected and he was buried in an obscure location. In 1737, after belatedly realizing their fuck up, Galileo was re-interred in the prominent place originally desired. In 1992, 359 years later, the Church finally agreed. At a ceremony in Rome, before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II officially declared that Galileo was right.
 
When it comes to the present day deniers, we say "And yet he stands there."
 
Someday, the majority will see the truth and our work will be vindicated.

Well said Stan!

I dont have to look too close at the extant images to see the face, faintly and softly, of Lee.
I cant make others see that if they dont want to look.

I can tell you its not anyone else and certainly no short plump greying lady.

Appreciate your work and words Stan!
3Cheers,
Ed

Galileo for Brian!
https://youtu.be/fJ9rUzIMcZQ

Exactly Steely

Brian's version revolves around a lunchroom and a dwarf planet named Stanton XL

Bart Kamp, Ed Ledoux, Stan Dane, on Prayer Man see my https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27770-a-five-point-road-map-to-accomplishing-a-change-of-consciousness-in-america-concerning-the-jfk-assassination/page/2/#comments. Greg Parker, see what you think of the "five point roadmap" I outlined in that thread to reopening the Oswald case. That thread has gone nowhere on the Education Forum, meaning little comment or interest.

Greg D what is funny in that thread is I see Larsen and Butler mentioning LNer scum. Do these two realise they are as much of a problem as LNer scum? As soon as these people realise that you might make one iota of progress, until then you will fight till yer dying days without a shred of advancement.
The thread is a great example, it is being railroaded left, right and center by those mentioned earlier. You ask for unity and you will not get a speck of dust of it.

Prayer Man is enough to make the deck of cards tumble, everything else follows because of it. That is why ROKC barely touches anything else, as it has been and still is a complete waste of time for results driven research.

CTers destroyed more than all the LNer scum together. 
The Harriet & Lillian EF crowd is ample proof of it.

People like Lifton, Butler, Hargrove are more dangerous than the likes of DVP or Posner.

barto wrote:Prayer Man is enough to make the deck of cards tumble, everything else follows because of it. That is why ROKC barely touches anything else, as it has been and still is a complete waste of time for results driven research.

What he said. 

Hey Brian, if you can afford to pay for Sanibel Gold, you can afford to pay attention. Pay up!

Greg_Doudna wrote:Bart Kamp, Ed Ledoux, Stan Dane, on Prayer Man see my https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27770-a-five-point-road-map-to-accomplishing-a-change-of-consciousness-in-america-concerning-the-jfk-assassination/page/2/#comments. Greg Parker, see what you think of the "five point roadmap" I outlined in that thread to reopening the Oswald case. That thread has gone nowhere on the Education Forum, meaning little comment or interest.

Your three points:

·      In the case of Tippit, exoneration with solution. 

·      In the case of JFK, exoneration without solution. 

·      In the case of Walker, reasonable doubt. 

Let's look at each in turn

1. Exoneration for sure. Solution (at least based on the car prints) is not certain. Here is Barnes' testimony on it.

Mr. BARNES. The first thing that I did was to check the right side of Tippit's car for fingerprints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you find any fingerprints on the right side of the car?
Mr. BARNES. There was several smear prints. None of value.
Mr. BELIN. Where were these smear prints located?
Mr. BARNES. Just below the top part of the door, and also on the right front fender.
Mr. BELIN. Why did you happen to check that particular portion of the vehicle for fingerprints?
Mr. BARNES. I was told that the suspect which shot Tippit had come up to the right side of the car, and there was a possibility that he might have placed his hands on there.

The key phrase is "none of value". I would note that this is not the same as saying they were unidentifiable. It could just as easily mean "none of value TO OUR CASE AGAINST OSWALD because they did not belong to Oswald."

Use of language is important. It can be used to say precisely what one means, or it can be made ambiguous to hide or avoid certain precise information.  Your friend Ruth is a master at it.

Here are the prints. They would need to be reevaluated to see if they are suitable for identification. 
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337647/

2. Exoneration for sure. As for a solution - I think at least different parts can be solved. That is really up to the authorities to hold an open and honest inquiry. This can happen now because enough of us know enough to keep them honest. Our job is getting the case to open status with Oswald's exoneration.

3. Exoneration for sure on reasonable doubt basis. More than reasonable doubt, I would say. The story on how Oswald came to be blamed is a book in itself, involving Quaker "charity" ladies, nazis, German newspapers, Dallas Morning News, students, Walker supporters and group members, Dallas police, FBI, White Russian and German Dallasites, and Marina. Not all of these worked together in the plot to blame Oswald, but those who were not in on the plot, were used to further it.

Sam Laurence pointed me to the angle of Lee's face in the DPD hallway. Its fantastic as it shows Lee looking down and it fits with PMs head angle and the notch in the hair MATCHES EXACTLY!
The ear. Also an exact fit.
The face and head shape are exactly a 100% match.
No way its anyone but LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

Message from Sam to ROKC:

Ed...." lAs I am aware my name has been mentioned in the PM forum on the ROKC website, I want you to take back this message to the forum so you can understand my history with this theory.
To the ROKC/PRAYER MAN researchers, you have my support.
I am a strong believer in “innocent until proven guilty”, which is to say that I will never definitively state that Lee Harvey Oswald or anybody else was responsible for the assassination. There are too many missing puzzle pieces and most of the evidence is circumstantial rather than direct. As someone got interested in the JFK case since 2010, I have been pro-conspiracy and pro-lone gunman at times, and by the mid 2010s, I began remaining on the neutral side, having no opinion, though I’m prepared to accept the WC findings. There’s just something I cannot put my finger on that is preventing me from calling it a lone gunman and calling it a day. I think the PM theory made me wake up to it. If the films are released and it turns out not to be Lee, then fine, I eat my words and accept the lone gunman conclusion. Indeed, I myself admit that a small part is unsure but unless/until high quality copies of the Darnell film are released and can confirm or eliminate Oswald as PM, this theory is the only JFK Conspiracy Theory that could be true IMHO. It deserves more attention and those films need to be released to end the debate or resolve it."

I agree with Sam.
Cheers
Ed

It's Lee. A child could see it. People with psychological disorders, no. But it's Lee.

Ed.Ledoux wrote:


Sam Laurence pointed me to the angle of Lee's face in the DPD hallway. Its fantastic as it shows Lee looking down and it fits with PMs head angle and the notch in the hair MATCHES EXACTLY!
The ear. Also an exact fit.
The face and head shape are exactly a 100% match.
No way its anyone but LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

Message from Sam to ROKC:

Ed...." lAs I am aware my name has been mentioned in the PM forum on the ROKC website, I want you to take back this message to the forum so you can understand my history with this theory.
To the ROKC/PRAYER MAN researchers, you have my support.
I am a strong believer in “innocent until proven guilty”, which is to say that I will never definitively state that Lee Harvey Oswald or anybody else was responsible for the assassination. There are too many missing puzzle pieces and most of the evidence is circumstantial rather than direct. As someone got interested in the JFK case since 2010, I have been pro-conspiracy and pro-lone gunman at times, and by the mid 2010s, I began remaining on the neutral side, having no opinion, though I’m prepared to accept the WC findings. There’s just something I cannot put my finger on that is preventing me from calling it a lone gunman and calling it a day. I think the PM theory made me wake up to it. If the films are released and it turns out not to be Lee, then fine, I eat my words and accept the lone gunman conclusion. Indeed, I myself admit that a small part is unsure but unless/until high quality copies of the Darnell film are released and can confirm or eliminate Oswald as PM, this theory is the only JFK  Conspiracy Theory that could be true IMHO. It deserves more attention and those films need to be released to end the debate or resolve it."

I agree with Sam.
Cheers
Ed

Sam has been very busy trying to get this to a wider audience through various legal and history focussed podcasts. 

I very much like that approach of bringing it to people outside of this community who have interests that intersect with ours.

Sam Laurence wrote:If the films are released and it turns out not to be Lee, then fine, I eat my words and accept the lone gunman conclusion.

Sam is being too pessimistic. If a good-quality copy of either of the films gets released and it turns out that the man in the shadows isn't Oswald, that doesn't imply that the lone-gunman theory is correct.

There is still good evidence that Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor in the few minutes before the shooting, when witnesses outside the building saw someone there. Oswald's sighting of Norman and Jarman near the domino room at around 12.25, when any assassin would surely have been waiting on the sixth floor, pretty much rules him out by itself. Then there are the accounts placing him in a storage room on the ground floor, presumably the room near the main entrance, shortly after the shooting.

If he isn't Prayer Man, he could still have been in the domino room during the shooting, only emerging shortly afterwards to "watch the p. parade". But it does look like him, doesn't it?

A dead ringer for Oswald. Posture,hairline, clothing etc all match up with Oswald.

Vinny wrote:A dead ringer for Oswald. Posture,hairline, clothing etc all match up with Oswald.

"Now let's not kid ourselves here as to the magnitude of what has just happened, said Sean. If a bona fide image even a quarter as clear as this one had emerged in recent days of a man at the Sniper's Nest window at assassination time, this would have been hailed by Warren Commission defenders as the final nail in the critics' ('kooks' to people such as Von Pein) collective coffin."
Prayer Man: Out of the Shadows and Into the Light, Page 177

His presence on the steps is proved far beyond the shadow of a doubt as exists for his presence in the sixth floor window.

Jake_Sykes wrote:His presence on the steps is proved far beyond the shadow of a doubt as exists for his presence in the sixth floor window.

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."  Jesse Curry

greg_parker wrote:

Greg_Doudna wrote:Bart Kamp, Ed Ledoux, Stan Dane, on Prayer Man see my https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27770-a-five-point-road-map-to-accomplishing-a-change-of-consciousness-in-america-concerning-the-jfk-assassination/page/2/#comments. Greg Parker, see what you think of the "five point roadmap" I outlined in that thread to reopening the Oswald case. That thread has gone nowhere on the Education Forum, meaning little comment or interest.

Your three points:

·      In the case of Tippit, exoneration with solution. 

·      In the case of JFK, exoneration without solution. 

·      In the case of Walker, reasonable doubt. 

Let's look at each in turn

1. Exoneration for sure. Solution (at least based on the car prints) is not certain. Here is Barnes' testimony on it.

Mr. BARNES. The first thing that I did was to check the right side of Tippit's car for fingerprints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you find any fingerprints on the right side of the car?
Mr. BARNES. There was several smear prints. None of value.
Mr. BELIN. Where were these smear prints located?
Mr. BARNES. Just below the top part of the door, and also on the right front fender.
Mr. BELIN. Why did you happen to check that particular portion of the vehicle for fingerprints?
Mr. BARNES. I was told that the suspect which shot Tippit had come up to the right side of the car, and there was a possibility that he might have placed his hands on there.

The key phrase is "none of value". I would note that this is not the same as saying they were unidentifiable. It could just as easily mean "none of value TO OUR CASE AGAINST OSWALD because they did not belong to Oswald."

Use of language is important. It can be used to say precisely what one means, or it can be made ambiguous to hide or avoid certain precise information.  Your friend Ruth is a master at it.

Here are the prints. They would need to be reevaluated to see if they are suitable for identification. 
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337647/

2. Exoneration for sure. As for a solution - I think at least different parts can be solved. That is really up to the authorities to hold an open and honest inquiry. This can happen now because enough of us know enough to keep them honest. Our job is getting the case to open status with Oswald's exoneration.

3. Exoneration for sure on reasonable doubt basis. More than reasonable doubt, I would say. The story on how Oswald came to be blamed is a book in itself, involving Quaker "charity" ladies, nazis, German newspapers, Dallas Morning News, students, Walker supporters and group members, Dallas police, FBI, White Russian and German Dallasites, and Marina. Not all of these worked together in the plot to blame Oswald, but those who were not in on the plot, were used to further it.

Greg P., since the above I wrote an argument that the interview of Sarah Stanton's stepdaughter by Doyle supports the argument that Oswald was on the front steps with Sarah Stanton, i.e. supports Prayer Man as Oswald (see my 6/7/22, second from end at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27770-a-five-point-road-map-to-accomplishing-a-change-of-consciousness-in-america-concerning-the-jfk-assassination/page/2/). That is original analysis on my part, significant if correct. I would be interested in you or others error checking and assessing that argument BUT there is a PRIOR matter that has troubled me since writing that, and could you comment or offer an opinion on this: Sarah Stanton signed a statement, along with all other TSBD employees, obtained by the FBI responsive to a Warren Commission request. In that typed, signed statement Sarah Stanton says she never saw Oswald that day. That contradicts the Sarah Stanton family story which otherwise has the ring of a credible family story of something (issues of interpretation of that story and errors in hearsay transmission aside). 

Despite best efforts I have been unable to find an image of Sarah Stanton's signature on that signed statement on the Mary Ferrell site or anywhere else online, only a typed transcript of the statement stating that she did sign it. I wanted as a routine matter to see the document and verify it. However the cover letter from FBI to Rankin states that signed statements from all TSBD employees were conveyed to the Commission, so I am unable to imagine a reasonable argument questioning the legitimacy of that document or that Sarah Stanton signed it.    

The question is: does that, in itself, rule out credibility of the Sarah Stanton family story (of Sarah Stanton telling of encountering Oswald on Nov 22)? If it does, there is no point taking up the pro-Oswald-Prayer Man interpretation of the Sarah Stanton story I offered due to irrelevance (if no Sarah Stanton encounter with Oswald could have happened at all that day). Which would be a shame because I thought I offered an interesting argument. (Also it does not quite make sense since the family story does seem to have the ring of credibility.) Could you comment? Thanks--