THE PRAYERMAN CULT

THE PRAYERMAN CULT  
Blurry Pictures & Blurrier Reasoning
Inline image 1
A study in hysterical thinking by William Dean Whitten
 
The story begins in the earlier days of JFK assassination reasearch…

‘Prayer Man’ in the TSBD Doorway

Dave Wiegman and Jimmy Darnell, two of the news cameramen travelling in the motorcade, began filming when they heard gunshots. For several decades, the significance of their two films was thought to lie in their portrayal of the spectators along Elm Street and the cars in the motorcade. More recently, attention has been drawn to the films’ depiction of the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository, and in particular to a previously ignored figure who, according to some observers, may have been Lee Harvey Oswald.

In several frames of the two black–and–white news films, a figure is visible in the western corner of the TSBD doorway. From the cameras’ point of view, the figure is standing to the left of the man in the Altgens photograph who has been identified as Billy Lovelady. The figure’s right arm appears to be raised across its chest, which has earned it the name ‘Prayer Man’. The figure is unlikely to have been praying, but it may have its arms crossed, or it may be holding an object up to its chest.

Although the figure in the currently available versions of the films is insufficiently distinct to permit a definitive identification, it appears to be a white man, dressed in a loose, dark–toned shirt with an open neck and either short or rolled–up sleeves. The figure does not appear to be wearing a white shirt or a tie, as would have been customary for male office workers in the early 1960s. Its short hair and light skin tone strongly suggest that it is neither a woman nor a black man, although the lack of definition in the images does not completely rule out either possibility. The figure’s head and hairline are not inconsistent with Oswald’s appearance.

http://22november1963.org.uk/prayer-man-jfk-assassination

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. “We believe in giving credit wherever it is due, so with that in mind, we have striven to obtain details of any previous investigation of this enigma. As far as it has been ascertained, the first discussion of the figure came in correspondence between Dick Sprague, Dick Bernabei and Harold Weisberg in 1968. That investigation ground to a halt due to their inability to obtain the original frame from NBC and they were left with a 7th generation copy.” — http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/prayer-man-faq#Question1

Yes, that investigation ground to a halt. And should have stayed halted as no other image has ever been produced; just a ton of rhetoric and irrational arguments. Many such arguments can be found at this page on JFKfacts:

http://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-3/#comment-871200  In the comments section of this current article we shall be addressing some of the assertions of this cult as put on the JFKfacts forum.

 

 

Advertisements

41 thoughts on “THE PRAYERMAN CULT

  1. “Oswald is prayerman,” is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Proponents of extraordinary claims should be candid, trustworthy.

    How do JFKfacts.org readers think George and members of his forum who have recently become more active commenters in our comments threads rate generally in the “candid, trustworthy” category?

    How does this week’s “Comment of the week,” rate?

    Does George’s Reopenkennedycase, aka ROKC forum attempt to do what he is claiming it does, and are his criticisms of the support of free expression of commenters on JFKfacts.org trustworthy?

    What could George and ROKC forum members do better than they are presently doing to persuade readers they indeed do present enough evidence to prove prayerman was Oswald, and actually encourage a free speech environment on the ROKC forum?

    What could Jeff Morley and I do on this website to better meet George’s professed expectations of what free speech should result in, in submission and approval of comments, considering JFKfacts.org’s no “real name” or registration requirement for submitting comments?”~Tom Scully – April 27, 2016 at 11:08 am

    -Link to last week’s Cotw – http://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-3/
    \\][//

    • leslie sharp
      April 27, 2016 at 3:10 pm
      ‘What could George and ROKC forum members do better than they are presently doing to persuade readers they indeed do present enough evidence to prove prayerman was Oswald,”

      “I think some context would be a good start. How does the PM allegation fit in with the elaborate exercise of linking Oswald to the weapons involved that day? Why would ‘plotters’ go to lengths to position Oswald in the TSBD only to have him photographed on the steps at the time of the assassination? I’ve long wondered if those claiming that Oswald was outside the building at the time the shots were fired had seriously considered the knock on effect; given the vehemence with which they argue their case on any forum that allows them space, I’m not sure they have incorporated the pre and post evidence that indicates Oswald was always intended as a patsy. If not, is their argument that everything about Oswald has always been the distraction, having no relation to the conspiracy? That is such a simple, fundamental question; the answer would end all discussion but I get the sense it is a question that’s being avoided. Why hasn’t it been addressed by the PM crowd on this site?

      ‘and actually encourage a free speech environment on the ROKC forum?’

      metaphors abound: verbal food fights are for frat house, Greg has constructed one; nice restaurants impose standards; what rational researcher would walk into a cage of angry beasts? It can be anticipated that when ill-bred dogs are chained to one another, they may well attack as a pack. It’s endless. But seriously, I have no interest in reverting to the ROKC site; if they want to bring their quality research here, I for one would welcome that with the proviso that this ‘history’ of the ed forum be resolved in private, and ‘they’ get down to the business of building the case sans gutter talk and petty grievances. Is it possible they can’t work from a clean tablet?”
      . . . . . . . . . .
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme — April 27, 2016 at 5:53 pm
        “We always assume the plotters of the assassination to have everything worked out to the last second with clockwork precision. We also assume the plotters to have originally planned an assassination by a lone gunman.

        Think of the venue where this murder took place. Midday in Dallas in front of a crowd. Perhaps it was originally meant to be seen as a murder committed by representatives of a group that was not friendly with the USA. Heck, maybe it WAS committed by a group not friendly with the USA.

        Could Oswald have been a part of that group (or an infiltrator from ONI) and maybe have been just one of a group of patsies that were going to be thrown to the wolves that day? Did the threat of WW III change the plans at the last minute, making Oswald the sole assassin?

        Anyone thinks this was a piece of precision work, intended to lay the blame on a shooter from the rear, think about this. JFK showed up at Parkland Hospital with a great big exit wound in the back of his head. This is professional?”

        My Reply:
        Willy Whitten — April 27, 2016 at 10:47 pm
        “We also assume the plotters to have originally planned an assassination by a lone gunman.”~Bob Prudhomme

        That is certainly not an assumption I have made Bob.
        I propose that the plotters meant for it to APPEAR to be an assassination by a lone gunman. That is an entirely different thing than what you assume.

        The most important thing to the plotters would have been EXTRACTION of the sniper teams. The theatrics meant to frame the patsy needed to hold for only a few hours time. The media was in the pocket of the conspirators, the aftermath could all be managed by the Public Relations Regime.

        The sloppiness of the burlesque meant to frame the patsy is obvious to anyone paying attention.

        Bob asks,
        “Did the threat of WW III change the plans at the last minute, making Oswald the sole assassin?”

        Of course not, that was a cover story prepared long in advance of the executive action. It was after all, a professional operation perpetrated by the System itself. But again that does not mean the plotters of the assassination had everything worked out to the last second with clockwork precision. All it meant was that prepared contingencies were ready for implementation. The most important of these was and remains managing perceptions.
        \\][//

        His Reply:
        Bob Prudhomme — April 28, 2016 at 10:31 am
        “Willy

        It must be wonderful to be all knowing, and to know exactly what happened on that day.

        I’m surprised you haven’t solved this crime years ago.”

        My Reply:
        Willy Whitten — April 28, 2016 at 4:51 pm
        “I’m surprised you haven’t solved this crime years ago.”~Bob Prudhomme

        It HAS been solved for years Bob. It was a coup d’etat. One needn’t be “all knowing” to grasp this; one need only be sufficient in analysis, critical thinking, and research skills.
        \\][//
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Thus begins the first confrontational comments between Mr Prudhomme and I; which will only escalate at the conversation goes forward.
        \\][//

      • Willy Whitten — April 27, 2016 at 5:03 pm
        The Prayerman image is a BIG ZERO. It is a blur and a smudge, no one in that image is identifiable. Any further discussion of the matter is a waste of time, as we discovered on last week’s Comment of The Week dedicated to this same subject.

        As per the cult promoting the Prayerman, they have a poor grasp of the art of persuasion. They were afforded their ‘Free Speech’ rights on this blog, rather than presenting a coherent case they stooped to denigrating their hosts and making absurd arguments.

        I for one have had enough of their nonsense.
        \\][//

        His Reply:
        George — April 27, 2016 at 10:41 pm
        “no one in that image is identifiable.” (quoting me)

        “Dear Willy,

        you may wish to contact Buell Wesley Frazier and point out to him the absurdity that he could identify himself in that image.

        I am certain he will be grateful.

        Kind Regards,
        George”
        . . . . . . .
        It is George’s assertion that Oswald is standing just next to Frazier on the steps in the Prayerman photo; Yet this is what Frazier says about when and where he saw Oswald on that day:
        http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm

        Mr. BALL – When was the last time you can remember you saw Lee?
        ……
        Mr. FRAZIER – Somewhere between it was after 10 and somewhere before noon, …… and I was on the first floor putting up books all day and I seen him back and forth and he would be walking and getting books and put on the order.
        Mr. BALL – That was the last time you saw him all day?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Right
        Mr. BALL – You didn’t talk to him again?
        Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir; I didn’t.
        Mr. BALL – Did you wear a coat or jacket to work that morning?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Yes, sir; I did.
        ……
        Mr. BALL – When you stood out on the front looking at the parade, where was Shelley standing and where was Lovelady standing with reference to you?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Well, see, I was standing, like I say, one step down from the top, and Mr. Shelley was standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there. See, he was standing right over there, and then Billy was a couple of steps down from me over toward more the wall also.
        Mr. BALL – Usually when Lee walked in the Building in the morning, when you came to work with him where did he go, do you know?
        ………

        Mr. BALL – And you separated after you got in there?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Yes; after we got into the interior I just went and put my lunch up.
        Mr. BALL – Did you notice where Lee kept his lunch?
        Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir; I didn’t.

        ……..
        Mr. BALL – We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President’s car going by.
        Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
        Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir; I don’t, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.
        Mr. BALL – I see.
        Mr. FRAZIER – Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.
        Mr. BALL – Do you recognize this fellow?
        Mr. FRAZIER – That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
        Mr. BALL – Billy?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Right
        Mr. BALL – Let’s take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
        Mr. BALL – That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
        Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
        Mr. BALL – In front of you to the right over to the wall?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Yes.
        …..
        Mr. BALL – That is written in. The arrow marks Billy Lovelady on Commission’s Exhibit No. 369…
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        My Current Commentary:

        In saying “they stooped to denigrating their hosts and making absurd arguments,” I am referring to the very first comments made complaining of the fact that Tom Scully had moved the Prayerman conversation from another thread on another topic to it’s own thread. It will be noted that Tom did not discard or censor any of their remarks; he only moved them to their own thread:

        Lee Farley – April 18

        “There is always “that guy” isn’t there?

        Here we go:

        1. Comments were made about Prayer Man on a thread entitled “What is the most important piece of JFK assassination evidence?”

        2. Bill Kelly, who has his head buried in the sand about Prayer Man, has spread misinformation about Prayer Man, does not want to face the facts concerning Prayer Man, and believes the pursuit of millions more pieces of paper is a much more useful exercise than helping get HD scans of the films, made a complaint that a couple of comments made by Bart and Vanessa should be moved.
        3. Tom immediately moved them citing that they were “off topic”
        4. Yet the majority of topics on the Air Force One thread are not about Air Force One and are also off topic. They, by some twisted logic are okay to stay in situ.
        5. Therefore, the allegation is thus, Tom Scully moved the said comments out of bias against Prayer Man. The reason? Because Prayer Man is now firmly associated with the members of Reopen Kennedy Case.
        6. Tom doesn’t like Reopen Kennedy Case because he was banned from there
        7. Therefore, he has been asked why he has acted this way concerning the topic of Prayer Man but has not acted this way concerning any of the other topics on the AF1 thread.
        8. Tom, upon being asked why he has demonstrated this bias immediately brought up the treatment that he believes he received whilst a member of ROKC.

        So, if that doesn’t tell you all there is to know about the moderator here and why he moved the comments from the thread entitled “WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF JFK ASSASSINATION EVIDENCE?”, a thread where Prayer Man BELONGS by the way, then I can’t help you.

        As far as you taking exception to my being here, spare me, please. It won’t work. If you want to speak to me about your feelings, your experiences, your likes/dislikes – then knock yourself out but don’t think to speak on behalf others. I’m sure they’re all perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. I have written a two part reply to Willy further up that explains exactly why all of the type of behaviour that Tom has demonstrated relates to the issue of Prayer Man and is further evidence of certain individuals being incredibly afraid of what Prayer Man might ultimately mean.”
        . . . . . . . . . .
        \\][//

    • “where anyone can post.” (Ronnie Wayne)

      “At the moderator’s sole discretion Ronny.

      Jefferson claims to be a free speech extremist.

      That’s actually what you get at my site. Anyone can become a member if you are sincere about wanting to reopen the case and are supportive of our efforts to do so.

      The only restriction on what is posted is that breaks no laws and that the poster is personally responsible for his/her own content.

      Nothing has to get past a pumped up hall monitor first.

      So yes, there is language. There is also honesty, a lack of bs and a desire to actually do more than simply debate in endless circles.”George – April 26

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      So what happens on this thread? We get a load of bullshit for the whole time the thread has been up.
      Going in endless circles for more than 678 comments! All due to the nonsense posted by George and Vanessa.

      UPDATE: As of now there are close to 800 comments on that one JFKfacts Prayerman thread!! (5/23/2016)
      \\][//

  2. leslie sharp — April 20, 2016 at 9:43 pm
    ” . . . further evidence of certain individuals being incredibly afraid of what Prayer Man might ultimately mean.” — Lee Farley

    “Mr. Farley, TomS as moderator of this site with a weekly responsibility of determining what constitutes “comment of the week” has chosen yours.

    I’m a frequent commenter here. My question of you is who exactly are these “certain individuals being incredibly afraid of what Prayer Man might ultimately mean? ”

    It’s a very simple question: WHO might be “incredibly afraid” of what the PM might mean?

    Admittedly I am very deliberately holding your feet to the fire, especially if you continue to be afforded the respect of engaging on this forum. You seem a rational person; why make sensational claims without supporting documents? Who precisely is afraid of what the Prayer Man theory might ultimately mean? Some names Mr. Farley?”

    Reply
    George — April 25, 2016 at 1:11 am
    “Mr. Farley, TomS as moderator of this site with a weekly responsibility of determining what constitutes “comment of the week” has chosen yours.}”

    Yup. Tom is showing us all how wrong certain of us have been about him. I know kids who are angels in front of adults, too… but then sneak off and burn the barn down and blame everyone else aftewards.

    The ones who remove comments about it on a thread asking about what people think is the best new research and then claim it was “off topic’.

    People who bar discussion of it altogether (Deep Politics and Greg Bunham’s forum) and those who allow it only so that they can control it an steer it and and try and change perceptions of it to something that it a joke (MacRae’s forum). Then there are those who DELIBERATELY conflate Cinque and Fetzer’s nonsense re Doorway Man with Prayer pretending it is the same thing… or those who claim it is just a photo that is comparable to the Badge Man Rorschach Test where you see a person that does not exist at all. There are too many in those last two categories to name.

    Reply
    leslie sharp — April 25, 2016 at 2:38 am
    So to get this straight, you want to discuss the discussion, is that right? Do you intend to bring to this forum the facts, distilled to a succinct series of comments with source links, to support the Prayer Man theory? So far, it seems to me that you’re attempting to redirect the readers who check in on this site to other forums, ironically perhaps those hosted by you and yours?

    Reply
    George — April 25, 2016 at 10:38 pm
    “Yes… do it get it straight.

    1. I am responding to what is being thrown about.
    2. I happy to discuss PM.
    3. I am not going to debate PM here because
    ( a ) The level of knowledge displayed on the subject is low (thus my request for people who want to talk about it, to read up on it first.
    ( b ) in any case, some of those have no real interest in PM, they just want to argue for their own perverse reasons
    4. You were doing so well on the assassination…. I mean reading one post, I almost thought, gee – he must have hacked my computer… you were so so close… a few more steps… and then you turn around with a completely crap observation about me wanting to redirect traffic to my site. Listen up genius. If I wanted to do that, don’t you think I’d provide a link? Not only haven’t I given one to my site, I haven’t linked it into the “name” “email” website” thing. Hell, I haven’t even NAMED my site here, FFS.

    I mean, this is the level of crap I get and you want me to be “nice” in return?”

    . . . . . . . . .
    Willy Whitten — April 26, 2016 at 11:57 am
    And just where is Mr. Lee Farley?

    Is someone posting here Mr Farley’s sock-puppet? Is Mr Farley in the outhouse waiting for someone to bring him some paper?
    Are there several cats fighting over who gets to run off with Mr Farley’s tongue?

    Okay Farley,

    You have your very own thread to make your case for Prayer Man.

    Let us have your substantive argument, rather than your hyperventilating hyperbole and complaints.

    What do you have? What do you hope to have in the future? And what is the distinction between the two?


    \\][//

    • Willy Whitten — April 22, 2016 at 11:04 am
      “We think this is a massive game changer.”~Vanessa

      Yes, Vanessa it is unmistakable that this is what you and your crowd think. While it could be, it isn’t yet, and that is where you and your comrades come into conflict with others, by posing as if the proof is already in the pudding. IT IS NOT.

      It remains CONJECTURE, who the person in the shadows is. Don’t loose sight of this, because that is when you start to piss off reasonable people.

      Vanessa — May 10, 2016 at 4:33 am
      “Of course not Willy. I’m asserting that the encounter which Curry and the reporters are discussing – Baker meeting Oswald happened “as he went into the building”.

      (PS Thanks Parker.
      btw what time is the Blood Oath Ceremony this week? I’ve got the guinea pig for the sacrificial offering).

      There you go Tom, something for you to spread around the internet.” 🙂

      My Reply:
      Willy Whitten — May 10, 2016 at 11:10 am
      “I’m asserting that the encounter which Curry and the reporters are discussing – Baker meeting Oswald happened “as he went into the building”.
      ~Vanessa

      And I am reminding you once again that Curry makes no mention of an “encounter” — YOU are interjecting that term into Curry’s dialog.

      Baker stated that the encounter happened up the stairs. Truly stated that the encounter happened up the stairs. YOU know this, and insist everybody that made a statement that spoils you little game here are liars.

      This thread has gone on for more than 600 comments on this nonsense attempting to back up your blurry photo, and none of you or your cult have produced anything even slightly reasonable. Are you going to repeat your tripe for another 600 posts? Another 1,000 posts?
      Until Doomsday?

      At least you aren’t sacrificing an abby in your ritual…
      \\][//

  3. Willy Whitten — April 28, 2016 at 6:09 pm
    “You are the epitome of the person desperate to become a prison warden who finally is allowed to become one – and appears to be a popular figure – until pressure or a crisis arises or there is some perceived slight or challenge to him or his authority. It is only at such times true colors emerge.”~Greg Parker as ‘George’

    This is simply outrageous slander. Tom did NOT discard any of the comments made by this gang of thugs. He simply moved them to their own heading. And rather than taking the opportunity to make a case for their Prayerman proposition, these clowns have continued bitching and moaning about Tom, about JFKfacts forum, and about anyone disputing what turns out to be their utter BS.

    This is the second page on this forum dedicated to this nonsense, and I certainly hope it is the last.
    Tom offered them the rope, and they duly hanged themselves with it.
    \\][//

    His Reply:
    George — April 28, 2016 at 6:39 pm
    “Dearest Willy,

    you’ve had more retirements and comebacks than Dame Nellie Melba and George Foreman combined.

    Fond regards,
    George,
    still your BFF.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    This is where “George”, who is actually Greg Parker, really starts taunting me with his “BFF” bullshit.
    It gets worse as the threads go on….

    “Willy, your fantasies about speaking to 12 year old girls are going to get you into trouble some day. Just sayin’.”~George aka Greg Parker
    See: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/forensics-ballistics-jfk/#comment-13426
    \\][//

  4. So after weeks of experience arguing with this cult, I have come to recognize many of their tactics and their MO. They are aware that when they make the spurious arguments that they will also be confronted by the Warren Commission Cult. They can then point to that as those of us who disagree and have argued against the Warrenistas for years, and claim that we are joining with them in confronting the Prayerman clique.

    This may seem clever of Mr Parker at first, but it is actually low grade propaganda tactics and totally obvious to anyone with experience with agents of cognitive dissonance.
    I am of the opinion that Parker and his gang are actually in a coordinated attack on JFKfacts with a central command somewhere; quite possibly led by John McAdams, as John disappeared just prior to this full scale assault on the JFKfacts forum. Whereas Mcadams was posting 4 to 9 comments a day just prior to the arrival of Parker.

    This seems to be a pincer movement between the open champions of the Warren Report, and moles pretending to be on the side of the researchers who are attempting to prove that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, and that the assassination was actually a coup d’etat.

    Yes I am herein accusing Greg Parker of being a mole and an agent for the State. I think the core group he is part of are moles as well. I think others are merely being duped by these statist pigs. I think Vanessa is one of the dupes. She just isn’t very smart, and buys into fringe bullshit because she can’t think her way out of a wet paper sack.

    I think Bob Prudhomme is being duped by these dancing kangaroo turds as well. Bob isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed either.
    \\][//

    • ‘Robert Prudhomme: The condescending piece of shit’ By Hasan Yusuf

      “A couple of nights ago, Robert Prudhomme; the utterly condescending piece of shit excuse for a researcher, sent me a personal message via Greg Parker’s forum, in which he called me a “fucking wanker.” Evidently, the dickhead is upset because I recently said that he is “nothing but a fucking cunt” (which is precisely what he is), and because I banned him from posting on Greg’s forum for being an utter fuckwit. To give the reader one example of why Prudhomme is a condescending piece of shit, in May of this year, the asshole wrote the following to Jefferson Morley on Morley’s website, “JFK Facts”
      Mr. Morley

      One can only assume, from your lack of response, that you have no interest in my materiel. This is understandable, considering the lower quality of many of the articles on this website. I would certainly not want to show anyone up here. Please do me the favour of deleting my comments from this thread.

      This can be read here. As the reader can see, this shows just how much of a childish and condescending piece of shit Prudhomme truly is. Here’s my message to the asshole:

      Go fuck yourself you redneck motherfucker. You are nothing but a childish and egotistical little cunt, and anyone who reads the above message you posted at “JFK Facts” (amongst others) can see that for themselves. Pray to God that I don’t come up to Canada, because if I do, I’m gonna shove your rifle(s) so far up your arse, the barrel(s) will stick out of your cock sucking mouth by two inches. Here’s some sound advice for you dickhead: Stop “researching” the JFK assassination, and stick to fucking deer carcases. After all, it’s what you’re best at. Now go have a cry, you childish little wanker. “~Hasan Yusuf
      [Wednesday, 25 June 2014]
      http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2014/06/robert-prudhomme-condescending-piece-of.html

      Bob Prudhomme, Gender:Male
      Location:British Columbia, Canada
      Interests: “Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know….the usual redneck stuff”
      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20175
      \\][//

  5. Willy Whitten — April 29, 2016 at 11:24 pm

    Could it have been different? Could this topic have been discussed in a less combative manner? Could it have been discussed rationally without rancor?

    Of course it could have. That is what is most aggravating of all about the way things did proceed here. I think most people who already think Oswald is innocent, that he cannot possibly have been JFK’s murderer. would be delighted to find definite, unambiguous proof; such as a clear photo of him elsewhere when the shots were fired.

    Therefore it is not the notion itself that brought this kettle to a boil here. It was the manner in which the Prayerman contingent assaulted the site with such determined virulence.

    There is no need at this point to relitigate the steps that led to this unfortunate confrontation. The arguments have been made and exhausted; the record is clear.

    I have had reasonably civil arguments with some proponents of the alteration of the Z-film – I have encountered other alteration proponents who are just as unreasonable and pugnacious as this current group of Prayerman proponents.

    In my experience, those who listen to reason, and learn the facts can be persuaded to change their views. Those who simply enjoy rancorous confrontation do not change their views because their views are secondary to their emotional and egotistical need for one-upmanship and conflict.

    Personally I am not seeking consensus on any of these topics, just reasonable and rational argumentation.
    \\][//
    http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-873274

  6. Now after all of this banter on several threads at JFKfacts (more that 700 posts), we are still left with nothing but a blurry photo and blurrier reasoning.
    \\][//

  7. leslie sharp — May 10, 2016 at 5:13 pm
    Greg, I’m even more skeptical of your boisterous arguments now that I have taken the time to transcribe a portion of Curry’s live interviews specific to Baker’s pursuit of the crime scene. In addition to possible misinterpretation and failure to grasp the dialect of the region, you’ve taken Curry’s statement “as he went into the building” out of context.

    Min. 5:25
    
Reporter: Could you detail for us what lead you to Oswald?

    Chief Curry: Not exactly except uh IN the building we uh, when we uh went to the building, why (a colloquialism), he was observed INthe building at the time but the manager told us that he worked there and the officers passed him ON UP (a colloquialism) then because the manager said he was an employee . . .

    Note: Curry used the phrase, IN: are you arguing he meant ‘at the entrance of the building’? If so, why didn’t Curry say “at the entrance of the building” in this earlier statement”

    Note: Curry also said ‘passed him ON UP’. How do you interpret that phrase? Baker passed Oswald “up” on some stairs? or did Curry mean, “they passed on by Oswald”? If it was “on up”, what stairs was Curry referring to? If he meant they passed “on by” Oswald, why didn’t Curry say “the officers passed him ON BY”?


    Continuing:

    Min. 6:41

    Reporter: Did you say chief that a policeman had seen him IN the building?

    Chief Curry: Yes

    Note: Curry affirms his own previous statement that a policeman saw Oswald IN the building.

    Note: At this juncture, why didn’t he say, “as he went into the building?”

    Reporter: After the shot was fired?

    Chief Curry: Yes

    Reporter: uh why didn’t he uh arrest him then?

    Chief Curry: Because the manager of the place told us that he was an employee, ‘said he’s alright he’s an empoyee.”

    Reporter: Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point?

    Chief Curry: Iya‘magine the policeman was checkin’ everyone he saw as he went inta the building.

    Note: This is not a parody but how anyone listening to Curry would transcribe his statement. The meaning of a term or phrase can also be effected by the inflection; for instance, “inta” the building means as Baker pursued the crime scene, from the second he hit the steps, after which he did not pass Oswald on the top level, and then encountered him “IN” the building as he said in his first two statements.

    Min.10:42:

    Reporter: And you have the witness who places him there after the time of the shooting.

    Chief Curry: My police officer can place him there after the shooting.

    Reporter: Your officer wanted to stop him and then was told by the manager that he worked there.

    Note: If there were other individuals standing around where you allege Baker first encountered Oswald ‘as he went into the building’ why didn’t Truly say “don’t worry about “THOSE” people, they all work here?”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Now Ms Sharp soundly destroys Greg Parker and Vanessa’s silly assertion that Curry was saying that Baker encountered Oswald at the entrance of the building.
    Will either one of them admit this? Almost surely not, they are not reasonable and will never admit when they are wrong.
    They simply want the mystery person to be OSWALD…AT ALL COST…regardless of the researched evidence which strongly suggests otherwise.

    \\][//

  8. George
    May 10, 2016 at 7:08 pm
    “Willy, there were 11 points.

    “Scurrilous allegations”? Really? Certain posters here were accused by innuendo of being in cahoots with the regular LNers here. Yet it has turned out that the accusers are the ones now in cahoots with those same LNers.

    If you can get up the noses of both LNers and the Tin Foul Hat brigade, you gotta be doing something right.

    You have been given the information on where to find rational and substantive argument for Oswald being PM. Refer to my point 3 above as to what the issue is with that.”

    http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-875356

    Willy Whitten — May 10, 2016 at 10:09 pm
    And so again the forum is answered with naught but Prayerman woowoo by Mr Greg the George Parker. It is said in that woowoo verbal pablum that we have been have “been given the information on where to find rational and substantive argument for Oswald being PM.”

    It is behind door #3 says he. Of course no map or even a URL is offered to the magical green room with scented candles and holy light.

    Perhaps we have all had enough of this burlesque? Perhaps some are entertained by the sitcom humor of this wayfarer from the land of blurry images. I would give the gentleman his leave were it up to me. Perhaps he can light a candle for us all in his special ashram.
    \\][//

    This is the dancing kangaroo turd’s point # 3:
    “That horses most definitely cannot be made to drink.”
    \\][//

  9. Willy Whitten — May 11, 2016 at 5:36 am

    Vanessa,

    You complain to me saying; “I did not say that Curry used the word ‘encounter’.”
    Then you turn around and say, “Personally I think ‘encounter’ is the best description,” after inviting me to, “Call it a ‘meeting’ if you want, call it an ‘interaction’.”

    So why the complaint that you did not use the word ‘encounter’ and the needless verbiage to only end up saying it is “the best description”???

    Can’t you see why it is so frustrating to read your loopy commentary here? You just went in a circle there for no rational reason whatsoever.

    Then you repeat your assertion that this “interaction” took place “as he went into the building” without adding any more support to that assertion than you did before. DESPITE the fact that Baker himself said that the encounter took place further up the stairs.
    \\][//
    http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-875431

    ‘Loopthink’:
    Vanessa continually displays a certain obnoxious and arrogant lack of capacity for rational thinking. People like Greg Parker who defend her, claiming that she is very perceptive and makes reasonable points, are either irrational as well, or disingenuous assholes.

    \\][//

      • Reid and Oswald pass each other going past her desk. Oswald goes out east to hallway, Reid goes west (likely to restroom) just before Hine enters facing east. Hine saw neither Oswald nor Reid when she reentered the office.

        \\][//


      • Second Floor Lunchroom


        Entrance looking out to Elm. No coke machines, but a cigarette machine.

        \\][//

    • Testimony Of Marrion L. Baker before the Warren Commission
      […]
      Mr. BELIN – In any event you heard the first shot, or when you heard this noise did you believe it was a shot or did you believe it was something else?
      Mr. BAKER – It hit me all at once that it was a rifle shot because I had just got back from deer hunting and I had heard them pop over there for about a week.
      Mr. BELIN – What kind of a weapon did it sound like it was coming from?
      Mr. BAKER – It sounded to me like it was a high-powered rifle.
      Mr. BELIN – All right. When you heard the first shot or the first noise, what did you do and what did you see?
      Mr. BAKER – Well, to me, it sounded high and I immediately kind of looked up, and I had a feeling that it came from the building, either right in front of me or of the one across to the right of it.
      Mr. BELIN – What would the building right in front of you be?
      Mr. BAKER – It would be this Book Depository Building.
      Mr. BELIN – That would be the building located on what corner of Houston and Elm?
      Mr. BAKER – That would be the northwest corner.
      Mr. BELIN – All right. And you thought it was either from that building or the building located where?
      Mr. BAKER – On the northeast corner.
      Mr. BELIN – All right. Did you see or hear or do anything else after you heard the first noise?
      Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir. As I was looking up, all these pigeons began to fly up to the top of the buildings here and I saw those come up and start flying around.
      Mr. BELIN – From what building, if you know, do you think those pigeons came from?
      Mr. BAKER – I wasn’t sure, but I am pretty sure they came from the building right on the northwest corner.
      Mr. BELIN – Then what did you see or do?
      Mr. BAKER – Well, I immediately revved that motorcycle up and was going up there to see if I could help anybody or see what was going on because I couldn’t see around this bend.
      Mr. BELIN – Well, between the time you revved up the motorcycle had you heard any more shots?
      Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir; I heard–now before I revved up this motorcycle, I heard the, you know, the two extra shots, the three shots.
      Mr. BELIN – Do you have any time estimate as to the spacing of any of these shots?
      Mr. BAKER – It seemed to me like they just went bang, bang, bang; they were pretty well even to me.
      Mr. BELIN – They were pretty well even.
      Anything else between the time of the first shot and the time of the last shot that you did up to the time or saw–
      Mr. BAKER – No, sir; except I was looking up and I could tell it was high and I was looking up there and I saw those pigeons flying around there.
      Mr. BELIN – Did you notice anything in either of those two buildings either on the northeast or northwest corner of Houston and Elm?
      Mr. BAKER – No, sir; I didn’t.
      Mr. BELIN – Were you looking at any of those windows?
      Mr. BAKER – I kind of glanced over them, but I couldn’t see anything.
      Mr. BELIN – How many shots did you hear?
      Mr. BAKER – Three.
      Mr. BELIN – All right. After the third shot, then, what did you do?
      Mr. BAKER – Well, I revved that motorcycle up and I went down to the corner which would be approximately 180 to 200 feet from the point where we had first stated, you know, that we heard the shots.
      Mr. BELIN – What distance did you state? What we did on Friday afternoon, we paced off from the point you thought you heard the first shot to the point at which you parked the motorcycle, and this paced off to how much?
      Mr. BAKER – From 180 to 200 feet.
      Mr. BELIN – That is where you parked the motorcycle?
      Mr. BAKER – Yes.
      Mr. BELIN – All right.
      […]
      Mr. BELIN – All right.
      Is there anything else you saw there, Officer Baker, before you ran to the building?
      Mr. BAKER – No, sir; not at that time.
      Mr. BELIN – All right.
      Then what did you do after surveying the situation?
      Mr. BAKER – I had it in mind that the shots came from the top of this building here.
      Mr. BELIN – By this building, you are referring to what?
      Mr. BAKER – The Book Depository Building.
      Mr. BELIN – Go on.
      Representative BOGGS -You were parked right in front of the Building?
      Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir; ran right straight to it.
      Representative BOGGS -Right.
      […]
      Mr. BELIN – You then ran into the Building, is that correct?
      Mr. BAKER – That is correct, sir.
      Mr. BELIN – What did you see and what did you do as you ran into the building?
      Mr. BAKER – As I entered this building, there was, it seems to me like there was outside doors and then there is a little lobby.
      Mr. BELIN – All right.
      Mr. BAKER – And then there are some inner doors and another door you have to go through, a swinging door type.
      As I entered this lobby there were people going in as I entered. And I asked, I just spoke out and asked where the stairs or elevator was, and this man, Mr. Truly, spoke up and says, it seems to me like he says, “I am a building manager. Follow me, officer, and I will show you.” So we immediately went out through the second set of doors, and we ran into the swinging door.
      Mr. BELIN – All right.
      Now, during the course of running into the swinging door, did you bump into the back of Mr. Truly?
      Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir; I did.
      Mr. BELIN – Then what happened?
      Mr. BAKER – We finally backed up and got through that little swinging door there and we kind of all ran, not real fast but, you know, a good trot, to the back of the Building, I was following him.
      Mr. BELIN – All right.
      Then what did you do?
      Mr. BAKER – We went to the northwest corner, we was kind of on the, I would say, the southeast corner of the Building there where we entered it, and we went across it to the northwest corner which is in the rear, back there.
      Mr. BELIN – All right.
      Mr. BAKER – And he was trying to get that service elevator down there.
      Mr. BELIN – All right. What did you see Mr. Truly do?
      Mr. BAKER – He ran over there and pushed the button to get it down.
      Mr. BELIN – Did the elevator come down after he pushed the button?
      Mr. BAKER – No, sir; it didn’t.
      Mr. BELIN – Then what did he do?
      Mr. BAKER – He hollered for it, said, “Bring that elevator down here.”
      Mr. BELIN – How many times did he holler, to the best of your recollection?
      Mr. BAKER – It seemed like he did it twice.
      Mr. BELIN – All right.
      Then what did he do?
      Mr. BAKER – I said let’s take the stairs.
      Mr. BELIN – All right. Then what did you do?
      Mr. BAKER – He said, “Okay” and so he immediately turned around, which the stairs is just to the, would be to the, well, the west of this elevator.
      Mr. BELIN – All right.
      Mr. BAKER – And we went up them.
      Mr. BELIN – You went up the stairs then?
      Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.
      Mr. BELIN – When you started up the stairs what was your intention at that–
      Mr. BAKER – My intention was to go all the way to the top where I thought the shots had come from, to see if I could find something there, you know, to indicate that.
      Mr. BELIN – And did you go all the way up to the top of the stairs right away?
      Mr. BAKER – No, sir; we didn’t.
      Mr. BAKER – What happened?
      Mr. BAKER – As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this–I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don’t know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
      Mr. DULLES – Where was he coming from, do you know?
      Mr. BAKER – No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go away from me.
      Mr. BELIN – What did you do then?
      Mr. BAKER – I ran on over there
      Representative BOGGS -You mean where he was?
      Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it seemed to me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is another door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a hallway over there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I could. see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet away from me in the lunchroom.
      Mr. BELIN – What did you do?
      Mr. BAKER – I hollered at him at that time and said, “Come here.” He turned and walked right straight back to me.
      Mr. BELIN – Where were you at the time you hollered?
      Mr. BAKER – I was standing in the hallway between this door and the second door, right at the edge of the second door.
      Mr. BELIN – He walked back toward you then?
      Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.
      Mr. BELIN – I hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 497 which appears to be a diagram of the second floor of the School Book Depository, and you will notice on this diagram there are circles with arrows. I want you to state, if you will, what number or the arrow approximates the point at which you were standing when you told him to “Come here”. Is there a number on there at all or not?
      Mr. BAKER – This 24 would be the position where I was standing.

      Mr. BELIN – The arrow which is represented by No. 24, is that correct?
      Mr. BAKER – That is correct.
      Mr. BELIN – On Exhibit 497. When you first saw him in which direction was he walking?
      Mr. BAKER – He was walking east.
      Mr. BELIN – Was–his back was away from you, or not, as you first saw him?
      Mr. BAKER – As I first caught that glimpse of him, or as I saw him, really saw him?
      Mr. BELIN – As you really saw him.
      Mr. BAKER – He was walking away from me with his back toward me.
      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm

      \\][//


      • Dallas,Texas – September 23, 1964
        I, Marion L. Baker, do hereby furnish this voluntary signed statement to Richard J. Burnett who has identified himself to me as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
        […]
        On the second floor , where lunchroom is located, I saw a man *standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke.* He was alone in the lunchroom at this time. (*this part is crossed out but legible*)
        \\][//

      • The central point being that officer Baker never said at any time that he encountered Oswald just as he entered the building.

        Second point is that Roy Truly clarifies what happened as Baker came into the building and how he directed Baker because he knew Baker didn’t know the layout of the building.

        Third point is that Chief Curry was relating to the press, second hand information he had received from various officers.
        \\][//

  10. Where was Oswald when the shots were fired at Kennedy? Eating his lunch in the Domino Room of the TSBD. Shortly thereafter he went up the corner stairs from that 1st floor lunchroom to the 2nd floor lunchroom that had coke machines. There he bought a coke shortly before being confronted by officer Marion Baker. Roy Truly assured Baker that Oswald was an employee there, and Baker let Oswald go and went on his way with Truly.
    Oswald then went from that lunchroom across the office next to it where he encountered Mrs Reid as they both passed her desk going in opposite directions. It is not certain where Oswald went from there and which route he took to leave the building.

    This is the only reasonable proposition that I have found to determine Oswald’s whereabouts during the shooting.
    \\][//

    • Roy Truly’s First testimony to Mr. BELIN:
      […]
      But as I came back here, and everybody. was screaming and hollering, just moments later-I saw a young motorcycle policeman run up to the building, up the steps to the entrance of our building. He ran right by me. And he was pushing people out of the way. He pushed a number of people out of the way before he got to me. I saw him coming through, I believe. As he ran up the stairway–I mean up the steps, I was almost to the steps, I ran up and caught up with him. I believe I caught up with him inside the lobby of the building, or possibly the front steps. I don’t remember that close. But I remember it occurred to me that this man wants on top of the building. He doesn’t know the plan of the floor. And-that is-that just pepped in my mind, and I ran in with him. As we got in the lobby, almost on the inside of the first floor, this policeman asked me where the stairway is. And I said, “This way”. And I ran diagonally across to the northwest corner of the building.
      […]
      Mr. BELIN. Okay. And where was this officer at that time?
      Mr. TRULY. This officer was right behind me and coming up the stairway.
      By the time I reached the second floor, the officer was a little further behind me than he was on the first floor, I assume–I know.
      Mr. BELIN. Was he a few feet behind you then?
      Mr. TRULY. He was a few feet. It is hard for me to tell. I ran right on around to my left, started to continue on up the stairway to the third floor, and on up.
      Mr. BELIN. Now when you say you ran on to your left, did you look straight ahead to see whether there was anyone in that area, or were you intent on just going upstairs?
      Mr. TRULY. If there had been anybody in that area, I would have seen him on the outside. But I was content–I was trying to show the officer the pathway up, where the elevators–I mean where the stairways continued.
      […]
      Mr. BELIN. Now, I hand you what has been marked Exhibit 497.

      Mr. BELIN. This is entitled “Texas School Book Depository, Diagram of Second Floor.”
      You can sit down, if you would, please, Mr. Truly.
      And would you, on Exhibit 497, if you would kind of take an arrow to show the route that you took going out-or up from the first floor, and starting up the stairs towards the third.
      Now, you marked that with pen.
      Could you put a “T” on that, if you would, please?
      Now, there appears to be some kind of a vestibule or hall of one kind or another with the No. 22 in a circle on it, on Exhibit 497. Is this completely clear, or are there books there from time to time?
      Mr. TRULY. No; that is always clear. There is a few cartons of office stock, invoices, blank invoices and stationery and stuff up and down here. But there is always a pathway. There is a post, right about where this 22 is. You can always clear it and come by there. I don’t think there would ever be stock here that would obstruct your view of the other area across there.
      […]
      Mr. TRULY. Yes; there is an opening on this side, and the staircase is back over here. This picture is just part of this vestibule out here.
      Mr. BELIN. And what direction does the camera appear to be pointing, or what is shown there?
      Mr. TRULY. It appears to be pointing east.
      Mr. BELIN. And I see a door with a glass in it.
      Could you show where on this diagram Exhibit 497 this door with the glass is?
      Do you see a number with an arrow pointing to the door?
      Mr. TRULY. That is it.
      Mr. BELIN. What number is that?
      Mr. TRULY. It is number 23.
      Mr. BELIN. All right. Number 23, the arrow points to the door that has the glass in it.
      Now, as you raced around, how far did you start up the stairs towards the third floor there?
      Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn’t following me.
      Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
      Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.
      Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
      Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.
      Mr. BELIN. All right. And I see that there appears to be on the second floor diagram, a room marked lunchroom.
      Mr. TRULY. That is right.
      Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
      Mr. TRULY. I ran over and looked in this door No. 23.
      Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open?
      Mr. TRULY. I don’t know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I don’t remember.
      Mr. BELIN. It could have been open or it could have been closed, you do not remember?
      Mr. TRULY. The chances are it was closed.
      Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it?
      Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way.
      Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
      Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
      Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him?
      Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door.
      Mr. BELIN. All right.
      Mr. TRULY. 2 or 3 feet, possibly.
      Mr. BELIN. Could you put an “O” where you saw Lee Harvey Oswald?
      All right.
      You have put an “O” on Exhibit 497.
      What did you see or hear the officer say or do?
      Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, “This man work here?” And I said, “Yes.”
      Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
      Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to run up the stairways until we reached the fifth floor. …
      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

      2nd The testimony of Roy S. Truly was taken at 2:30 p.m., on May 14, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.
      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly2.htm
      \\][//

  11. The testimony of Chief Jesse E. Curry was taken at 9:15 a.m., on April 15, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Leon D. Hubert, Jr., assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.
    […]
    Mr. HUBERT – Can you tell us what you know about the matter from that point on, and it may be just as well if you will tell it in a narrative fashion. I will ask you some questions as we go along, or perhaps wait until the end to fill in. We will see how it works out. Briefly, what we want to know is what you know about the whole thing.
    Mr. CURRY – Well, on November 22, I was in the lead car of the Presidential caravan. With me were Secret Service Winston Lawson and Forrest Sorrels, and the sheriff of Dallas County, Bill Decker, and we were nearing the triple underpass in the western part of Dallas, and which is near Stemmons Express-way-it was necessary for us to move to Elm Street in order to get on the Stemmons Expressway to get the President’s caravan down to the Trade Mart where they were going to have a luncheon.
    I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards at this time, and I didn’t know–I didn’t know exactly where this report came from, whether it was above us or where, but this was followed by two more reports, and at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, “Yes,” and I said, “Has somebody been shot?” And he said, “I think so.” So, I then ordered him to take us to Parkland Hospital which was the nearest hospital, so we took the President’s caravan then to Parkland Hospital and they were the President, the Vice President and the Governor–were taken into the hospital and I remained at the hospital for–oh–some hour or so.
    At about 1:15 that day–this first incident occurred about 12:30 or so, and about 1:15 I was notified that one of our officers had been shot, and a few minutes later was told that he was dead on arrival at the hospital. At that time we didn’t know who shot him. I was just told it was in Oak Cliff. I was still at the hospital at this time and I was told by some of the Secret Service people, I don’t recall who, to get my car ready and another car ready to take the President–we were informed that President Kennedy had expired–and we were asked to have two automobiles standing by to take President Johnson to Love Field.
    Mr. HUBERT – Let me stop you and ask you this: When you had the news of the death of Tippit, or the shooting of Tippit, did you associate that in any way with the President’s assassination?
    Mr. CURRY – No; I didn’t at the time.
    Mr. HUBERT – All right, sir; go on.
    […]
    Mr. CURRY … Now, as best I recall, it was probably around 4 o’clock when I got to the city hall, and I started to my office on the third floor, and when I got off of the elevator there I could see that there was just pandemonium on the third floor. There was dozens and dozens of newsmen just crammed into the north end of the corridor. There were television cables running from down the halls, from the administrative office, and I went to my office and talked with some of my staff–I don’t recall who all was in there at the time about what was going on, and I was told by someone, I believe Chief Stevenson that they had a man named Oswald whom they believed to .be the murderer of Officer Tippit, and they had been questioning him in Captain Fritz’ office.
    Mr. HUBERT – Did they advise you at that time, or did they know to your knowledge that he was also a suspect in regard to the assassination of President Kennedy?
    Mr. CURRY – Someone mentioned that he was also a strong suspect in the assassination of the President.
    Mr. HUBERT – That was at that same time?
    Mr. CURRY – Yes, sir.
    Mr. HUBERT – When you got back there?
    Mr. CURRY – After I returned from Love Field.
    Mr. HUBERT – Now, you say Captain Fritz was carrying on the interrogation?
    Mr. CURRY – Yes; that’s his responsibility, to investigate murders, robberies, and rapes, and extortions and things of that kind.
    Mr. HUBERT – It’s fair to say, then, that the interrogation of Oswald with respect to either the death of Tippit or of President Kennedy was in accordance with the normal procedures of the department?
    Mr. CURRY – That’s correct.
    Mr. HUBERT – How long had Captain Fritz been in that position, sir?
    Mr. CURRY – A number of years—I don’t recall exactly when he was appointed to his position with the homicide division–probably 15 years anyway.
    I had received a call from the FBI or someone in the FBI, I don’t recall whether it was Shanklin or who, and they were requesting that a representative of their Bureau be allowed to be present when Oswald was interviewed.
    Mr. HUBERT – Did you agree to that?
    Mr. CURRY – I called Fritz in his office and told him we had this request, and Fritz said, “Okay; we’ll let them in.”
    At that time I understood there was a representative from Secret Service already in the room and the representative from the FBI went in–one or two FBI representatives.
    It was some time before I ever went to the homicide office myself.
    […]
    Mr. HUBERT – Did you see Oswald then, or when was the first time you saw him?
    Mr. CURRY – I don’t recall exactly the first time I saw him, but I believe it was in the evening–in the early evening. When I did see him I remember that he impressed me as being a sullen, arrogant individual, and he didn’t seem particularly perturbed with the fact that he was being interrogated or that he was causing such a commotion he was pretty cool.
    Mr. HUBERT – You didn’t question him yourself, did you?
    Mr. CURRY – No, sir; I did not.
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/curry2.htm

    Warren Commission Testimony Of Jesse Edward Curry, before Rankin
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/curry1.htm

    \\][//

  12. Vanessa — May 11, 2016 at 9:43 pm
    “Willy

    Speaking of Hosty, here is his account of where Oswald said he was, courtesy of FBI Agents Bookhout and Hosty’s co-written first day interrogation report (11/22/63).

    “Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building”.

    “Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building”
    http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-875611

    My Reply:

    Willy Whitten — May 11, 2016 at 11:05 pm
    “Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building”~Vanessa

    You are completely ignoring the first predicate sentences:

    “Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch.”
    . . . . .

    Where was Oswald when the shots were fired at Kennedy? Eating his lunch in the Domino Room of the TSBD. Shortly thereafter he went up the corner stairs from that 1st floor lunchroom to the 2nd floor lunchroom that had coke machines. There he bought a coke shortly before being confronted by officer Marion Baker. Roy Truly assured Baker that Oswald was an employee there, and Baker let Oswald go and went on his way with Truly.
    Oswald then went from that lunchroom across the office next to it where he encountered Mrs Reid as they both passed her desk going in opposite directions. It is not certain where Oswald went from there and which route he took to leave the building.

    This is the only reasonable proposition that I have found to determine Oswald’s whereabouts during the shooting.
    \\][//

  13. The never ending Australian Fruitloops Factory:

    Vanessa — May 12, 2016 at 12:16 am

    “Willy

    Below is Officer Baker’s WC testimony about seeing LHO at police headquarters:

    Representative BOGGS -Let me ask one other question. You later, when you recognized this man as Lee Oswald, is that right, saw pictures of him?

    Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir. I had occasion to see him in the homicide office later that evening after we got through with Parkland Hospital and then Love Field and we went back to the City Hall and I went up there and made this affidavit.

    Representative BOGGS -After he had been arrested?

    Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.

    So Baker has seen Oswald after he was arrested and before Baker made his affidavit.

    If Oswald is the man Baker saw ‘walking away from him on the 3rd or 4th floor’ why doesn’t he identify him as the man who has been arrested?

    Boggs says “when you recognised this man Lee Oswald”.

    If Baker recognised Oswald as the 3rd or 4th floor man why doesn’t he name him in his affidavit?”
    http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-875661

    My Reply
    Willy Whitten — May 12, 2016 at 8:36 am

    “So Baker has seen Oswald after he was arrested and before Baker made his affidavit.”~Vanessa

    That is not what is said in that exchange between Baker and Boggs. Boggs was obviously verifying that the man Baker stopped in his affidavit was Oswald, BECAUSE Baker hadn’t known the name at the time he wrote the affidavit.

    Again you are reading something into it that simply is not there Vanessa.
    \\][//

    Vanessa also ignores the fact that during this exchange with Baker it is clarified that this encounter with Baker and Oswald took place on the 2nd floor at the doorway to the vestibule leading to the 2nd floor lunchroom. But Vanessa keeps going back to “the 3rd or 4th floor man..”
    Vanessa and George are the most disingenuous commentators to post on JFK in a long time.

  14. “In other words you are saying “and even if Curry is NOT speaking in tongues as we claim, and he really did say Baker encountered Oswald at the entrance, it doesn’t matter one whit because it is… wait for it… HEARSAY!”
    My 11 points kicks another goal.”~Greg the George Parker —
    May 12, 2016 at 12:16 am on JFKfacts

    Don’t you just love that phrase “in other words”? McAdams used it all the time too, it essentially means, “here is my straw-man argument, putting my words in your mouth and then arguing against my own words.”

    I clearly did not say nor infer that, Curry “really did say Baker encountered Oswald at the entrance…”

    Also yes, technically Curry’s statements to the press were hearsay, as he was repeating what others had said, and certainly not verbatim.

    But the real disgusting, deeply arrogant part is the last; “My 11 points kicks another goal.”

    There are now, as of 1:15PM (my time) on 5/12/2016, 688 comments on that stupid Prayerman thread … a tempest in a thimble over a blurry picture!
    \\][//

  15. John Rowell — May 1, 2016 at 10:40 am
    “Only a fool, or group of fools, would willingly disregard exculpatory evidence provided by the authorities. The second floor encounter is the best we have with regards to an alibi for Oswald, BECAUSE it was entered into evidence by an entity having no interest in providing it. I, for one, am not willing to discard Baker and Truly’s testimony and replace it with blurry speculation. Period.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I would imagine there are many in JFKfacts’ readership with the wisdom of Mr Rowell. Very few of the regulars have bothered with the Prayerman thread.
    \\][//

  16. “Willy Whitten is a complete waste of time, space, energy and words. Leslie Sharp is as dim as they come. At the end of the day we have these two know-nothing idiots driving the conversation into citation hell. When you are having to prove whether you have or haven’t used a comma in a post then it has gotten to the point of insanity.
    Willy Whitten is good for nothing more than a colossal kick in the plum sack if you ask me. He is a serious time waster and was made from the same mould as Brian Doyle. Both of them experts in EVERYTHING.
    Leslie Sharp asked me if I was the type of person who went to pubs to start fights. I never responded to her. My reply, if I had given one, would have been thus…”~Lee Farley
    http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13339170-jfk-facts-website?page=last

    Just like all of the squirrelly bandersnatch on this cult’s website, there is absolutely no substance to the comments, just bleeding assholes bitching and moaning.

    And this Farley asshole STILL hasn’t had the guts to post on JFKfacts since that first blurb of blubber!

    I think that Prayerman cult is just blowing huff on that thread. I don’t think Farley has the balls to post on JFKfacts.
    \\][//

    • From the ‘No are You Serious’ Files:

      http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13238786-prayer-man-?page=39
      A short sleeve shirt? Holding a bottle? WTF???

      In the blow-up sequence further down on the page above, it appears that ‘Prayerman’ is holding a camera shooting a photograph, by the posture. But it is anyone’s guess, as it is simply too blurry to make anything out for sure.



      Where is Oswald’s obvious white tee shirt in the Prayerman picture?
      I would say this eliminates Oswald as Prayerman. Of course the cult will never accept that.

      \\][//

  17. Here is a further example of the LoonyToon madness we get from these idiots of the Prayerman cult.
    Georgie the Oinking Porker gives “quotes” from some unverifiable source, and then plays it like it is a valid piece of testimony. And yes, he actually seems to think someone rational is going to fall for this kangaroo shit!

    George — May 16, 2016 at 12:09 am
    London Free Press, Nov 23, 1963:

    “Mothers threw their children on the ground, fearing the killer’s bullets.As the presidential limousine sped to the hospital, the police dragnet went into action. Hicks said apparently just about that time Oswald came out the front door of the red brick warehouse. A policeman asked him where he was going. He said he wanted to see what the excitement was all about.”

    This story was also published in several US papers. Anyone who dismisses this as hearsay is being deliberately obtuse. We’re talking about the cops who where there on the scene telling Hicks what had transpired a couple of hours prior. There is no wiggle room here. It is not Chinese Whispers. It is processional law enforcement officers we are talking about and the information came within hours to Hicks’ ear. It is no surprise then to find this pretty well matches what Oswald would tell his interrogators later that day. Unless you think Oswald was psychic and knew what would be published the next morning, then the Hicks story is corroboration of a rock solid alibi.”
    http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-876497

    Reply
    Tom S. — May 16, 2016 at 1:26 am
    George, why didn’t you say so sooner? Your stellar research breaks the back of the testimonies of Truly, Baker, Frazier, Lovelady and Shelley. Your latest evidence is so overwhelming that their testimonies were complete fabrications, no film evidence of higher quality is even necessary. Now the task begins of getting all of the history books rewritten! If you have not already done so, take the text of your linkless cite on over to the relevant wikipedia pages and rewrite them.

    Reply
    Vanessa — May 16, 2016 at 6:45 am
    I’m sorry Tom, but it appears that your comment does not contain a link or a citation and also seems to contain a personal attack.

    As such it does not meet the rules you have recently posted.

    Be a good chap and delete it.”

    Reply
    George — May 16, 2016 at 8:00 am
    “Hi Frank,

    Yes, ( a ) they all lied — OR ( b ) Oswald was psychic and as a result of that psychic power, knew what Hicks had said to reporters OR ( c ) Hicks was involved in a conspiracy with Oswald.

    Now call me overly-cautious, but I think of those three options, I’m most comfortable with the one where witnesses before a rigged commission, lied.

    If you don’t like any of those options, maybe you can come up with one that involves Henry Crown’s neighbors cousin marrying a guy who was once the pool guy for Carlos Marcello’s accountant?

    And don’t forget the links.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    If I ran JFKfacts, I would shut down every thread about the Prayerman, and flush them down the shitter where they belong. Those people are idiots.

  18. Willy Whitten — May 19, 2016 at 9:24 am

    “Are you seriously going to contend that the whole country knew Lee Oswald’s name but not the key witness in the case against him?”~Vanessa

    Why do you assume Baker heard Oswald’s name?
    He wasn’t sitting around watching TV, he was on official business.

    And if he did hear why would he connect it to the man he confronted in the TSBD?

    He understood that man to be okay, as an employee of the TSDB How would he know it was the same person until he saw Oswald brought in after his affidavit was drawn?
    \\][//

    Warren Commission Testimony Of Marrion L. Baker

    Mr. BELIN – When you started up the stairs what was your intention at that–
    Mr. BAKER – My intention was to go all the way to the top where I thought the shots had come from, to see if I could find something there, you know, to indicate that.
    Mr. BELIN – And did you go all the way up to the top of the stairs right away?
    Mr. BAKER – No, sir; we didn’t.
    Mr. BAKER – What happened?
    Mr. BAKER – As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this–I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don’t know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
    Mr. DULLES – Where was he coming from, do you know?
    Mr. BAKER – No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go away from me.
    Mr. BELIN – What did you do then?
    Mr. BAKER – I ran on over there
    Representative BOGGS -You mean where he was?
    Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it seemed to me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is another door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a hallway over there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I could. see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet away from me in the lunchroom.
    Mr. BELIN – What did you do?
    Mr. BAKER – I hollered at him at that time and said, “Come here.” He turned and walked right straight back to me.
    Mr. BELIN – Where were you at the time you hollered?
    Mr. BAKER – I was standing in the hallway between this door and the second door, right at the edge of the second door.
    Mr. BELIN – He walked back toward you then?
    Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm

    \\][//

    • Sarah Stanton affidavit: she was standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the shots on 11/22/1963.
      Oswald was not on the steps at that time. PERIOD.

      Mrs Sanders (Pauline) standing on top step, east end of the entrance. That is just across from where the mysterious “Prayerman” is standing.
      \\][//

  19. Bart Kamp — May 19, 2016 at 9:29 am
    “I need to correct something.
    It was Captain Will Fritz who wrote in his Nov 22nd report that Baker had recognised Oswald in a line-up and not Johnson.
    Apologies for the mistake.”
    http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-877220

    What Nov 22nd report? Where is Kamp’s reference?

    Oswald was interrogated for a total of approximately 12 hours between 2:30 p.m. on Friday, November 22, 1963, and 11:15 a. m. on Sunday, November 24, 1963. There were no stenographic or tape recordings of these interviews. Fritz did not get a confession from Oswald but became convinced of his guilt and just before midnight he formally charged him with the president’s murder.
    \\][//

  20. [Report by Marvin Johnson on Officer’s Duties #2]

    Johnson took a phone call from Patrolman M.L. Baker between 2 PM – 3 AM on November 22, and took his affidavit. OVER THE PHONE!
    http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337830/m1/3/?q=marvin
    http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box1.htm
    See also: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11921#relPageId=3&tab=page
    And for Truly: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11921#relPageId=3&tab=page

    \\][//

  21. I am not at all convinced that is all one shirt. I see a distinct ridge above the elbow, like another shirt rolled up over a sweatshirt or sweater.

    If this were Oswald his white tee shirt would be very apparent at the neck & collar line, it should have a higher albedo than the face.

    Most essentially I cannot make out the face of who this person is.
    \\][//

  22. Willy Whitten — May 20, 2016 at 3:03 am

    “Willy
    This is exactly the point I have been making.
    Baker did not use Oswald’s name because Oswald was not the man he saw.”~Vanessa

    Actually Vanessa, that isn’t the point I have been making at all. Far from it, and for you to posit thus is ludicrous.

    You continue with: “It took Baker months to get on board with the official version…” – which is more pure conjecture on your part.

    What proof do you have that Baker resisted the further understanding of the layout of the building and where he actually was, when given Truly’s input?

    As far as the time from the beginning of taking testimony by the Commission and the time that Baker and Truly testified; one must consider that the Commission took hundreds of witness testimonies and that takes months in itself.

    As far as my supposed faith in the official narrative, I have none in the ‘narrative’, which means the story put to the data.

    But I do put store in the actual data, and think it needs to be analyzed on our own cognizance. And as far as that goes, I have absolutely zero faith in your cognizance Vanessa, I think your reasoning ability is akin to a petulant child that simply wants her own way.
    \\][//

    http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-877398

    Note: Testimony Of Roy S. Truly
    The testimony of Roy S. Truly was taken at 2:30 p.m., on May 14, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.
    . . . . . . . .
    Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know what this is.
    Mr. TRULY. Yes. This is the vestibule, when you first come up the stairs on the second floor–this is what you will find right there.
    Mr. BELIN. Now, as you take a look at the picture Exhibit 498, is this a post immediately to the left side of the picture, to the extreme left of the picture?
    Mr. TRULY. No.
    Mr. BELIN. What is this to the extreme left? Is that the wall for the staircase?
    Mr. TRULY. Yes; there is an opening on this side, and the staircase is back over here. This picture is just part of this vestibule out here.
    Mr. BELIN. And what direction does the camera appear to be pointing, or what is shown there?
    Mr. TRULY. It appears to be pointing east.
    Mr. BELIN. And I see a door with a glass in it.
    Could you show where on this diagram Exhibit 497 this door with the glass is?
    Do you see a number with an arrow pointing to the door?
    Mr. TRULY. That is it.
    Mr. BELIN. What number is that?
    Mr. TRULY. It is number 23.
    . . . . . .
    \\][//

  23. Anthony Weston is an American philosopher, teacher, and writer. He is author of widely used primers in critical thinking and ethical practice and has written a variety of unconventional books and essays on philosophical topics.

    Critical thinking

    A Rulebook for Arguments (Hackett Publishing Company, 1986; 4th edition, 2009, ISBN 0-87220-954-7) now in its 4th edition and translated into ten languages: this critical-thinking handbook is Weston’s best known book.

    A Workbook for Arguments, co-authored with David Morrow (Hackett Publishing Company, 2011, ISBN 1-60384-549-6). Textbook expansion of Rulebook.
    Creativity for Critical Thinkers (Oxford University Press, 2007; ISBN 0-19-530621-X)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weston#Philosophy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s