JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on March 29, 2025, 09:38:44 PM
-
Yes, Prayer Person has been beaten to death. I was surprised to see that the folks at the Ed Forum are all atwitter because Rep. Luna is going to request the original Darnell and Wiegman films from NBC. At last we will know the truth, or maybe not. (I use the term Prayer Person because, as Duncan once argued, PP looks more like a woman to me.)
I confess, I lack sufficient imagination to become enthusiastic about PP. Yet many quality researchers like Greg Parker and Bart Kamp and others have been. One notable windbag at the Ed Forum has asserted that PP is Oswald “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I truly always wonder, “What cogs are turning inside their heads that aren’t turning in mine?”
If the issue were simply, “Who is that amorphous figure on the top of the TSBD steps?” – well, sure, this would be interesting and nice to know. It’s the enthusiasm that this might be – no, is! – Oswald that mystifies me.
Read my lips: I don’t want to know the details of why you think PP is Oswald. I’ve heard all the arguments. I simply want to hear why you think this notion makes any sense at all. What is your logic? You will note that all PP discussions focus solely on the technical details of why the amorphous figure could be Oswald and ignore more basic issues such as these:
1. In what sort of conspiracy would it make any sense to place a rifle traceable to Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD but allow him to be standing on the steps in full view at the time of the shooting? I am so dull that I can’t think of anything. If you don’t at least have the patsy under control and out of sight, how is he an effective patsy? If the rifle is on the 6th floor and the patsy is on the steps, doesn’t this pretty much scream “Conspiracy!” Get me over this mental hurdle, PP fans!
2. It would seem to be pure happenstance that no clear photo of PP exists. There could have been 20 cameras trained on that location that clearly showed PP was Oswald and blew the Lone Nut narrative clean out of the water, but the conspirators took this risk and by pure happenstance there weren’t. By pure happenstance, “Oswald” is a blurry blob in the shadows. Plausible?
3. The steps and the immediate area were crawling with people, mostly fellow TSBD employees. No one recalled seeing Oswald standing there? No one recalled the supposed assassin? Not one person so much as had a sudden flash of "Hey, could that have been Oswald standing there?" Plausible?
4. How on earth is it possible that in all of his interactions with police, reporters and family members, Oswald never screamed at the top of his lungs “For God’s sake, I was standing right there on the steps!!! At least five or ten people must’ve seen me! Talk to them!” Despite the cryptic “out with Bill Shelley in front” in Fritz’ notes, Oswald never screamed to reporters “Someone please talk to Bill Shelley! I was standing there with him!” Plausible? (Indeed, when specifically asked by a reporter “Were you in the building at the time?” Oswald answered “Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.” He didn't answer, "Well, no, I was out on the steps with Bill Shelley, as I feel sure he will confirm.")
5. PP is inconsistent with the Baker-Truly lunchroom encounter and Mrs. Reid’s office encounter (with Oswald in a t-shirt!), is it not? Is it plausible that both these encounters were invented as part of a conspiracy? “They” got to Baker, Truly and Reid? If “they” didn’t care that Oswald was standing on the steps in the first place, what was the need for all this? Or perhaps Baker, Truly and Reid were part of the frame-up of Oswald from the get-go - but wouldn't the more obvious frame-up have been to simply control him so he wasn't on the steps? Oy, I'm getting a headache ...
Make sense of if for me, if you can.
-
1. In what sort of conspiracy would it make any sense to place a rifle traceable to Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD but allow him to be standing on the steps in full view at the time of the shooting?
If it is LHO, how do we know he didn't wander down there on his own, not doing what he had been told to do, i.e. stay by yourself, out of sight of other people.
-
1. In what sort of conspiracy would it make any sense to place a rifle traceable to Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD but allow him to be standing on the steps in full view at the time of the shooting?
If it is LHO, how do we know he didn't wander down there on his own, not doing what he had been told to do, i.e. stay by yourself, out of sight of other people.
You, then, are positing a conspiracy where the pesky patsy fails to stay out of sight as he's been told to do and wanders out onto the steps. Now you will need to explain (1) why the patsy doesn't question why he's being told to stay out of sight, and (2) why, in a PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSINATION, the conspirators would trust the patsy to stay where he's told and exercise no control over him. Thanks for trying, but this really doesn't address any of the issues I raised. For starters, if our patsy had wandered out to the steps, wouldn't his screaming alibi have been "I WAS STANDING ON THE STEPS!!!" as I suggested?
-
The Hosty note where Oswald allegedly says he's going outside to watch the P/parade is what reignited the Prayerperson nonsense.
(https://i.imgur.com/BbjrRa7.jpeg)
I have addressed Prayerperson(PP) with this 3D representation of the Darnell frame. Since we know Frazier's height of about 6 foot we can establish that PP is much shorter than the 5'9" of Oswald.
(https://i.ibb.co/5gM6H549/PM-five-foot-three-zpsdyfd74jb.jpg)
There was some debate that PP had one foot on the lower step and thus the height of PP could correspond to Oswald's height but PP is way back in the shadow and another proof is since the camera was moving horizontally we can determine the horizontal parallax movement of stationary objects which does require an assumption that the object didn't move in the fraction of a second between frames, so assuming that both Frazier and PP were stationary we can see PP relative to the vertical frame behind shows virtually no parallax movement indicating she was close to the corner and Frazier because he was further away from the door shows more horizontal movement.
(https://i.ibb.co/bgpYRVVN/pm1-zpsorhj1xpm.gif)
And besides this visual proof, we have Oswald himself agreeing that he was inside at the time!
@1:15
Rep Luna who is holding a hearing on of all dates April first(LOL) says NBC has never seen before footage(which if it's the Darnell film we have definitely seen a low res version), of Oswald(PP) near the Limo, this whole fiasco is going to embarrass a LOT of people and will forever cement the entire JFKA CT community as a bunch of Loons(Luns) Hahahaha!
@2:20
JohnM
-
Can no CTer articulate a plausible basis for the notion that PP is Oswald?
I'll even get you started: When I posed the same question at the Ed Forum years ago, one CTer offered that the conspirators were "sending a message." The message was, basically, "We're such bad dudes and so firmly in control that we don't even CARE if our patsy is seen standing on the steps of the TBSD when he is supposed to be shooting from the 6th floor."
SURELY, someone can do better than THAT?
Come on, people, there really are quite a number of serious researchers who take PP seriously. There must be SOME logic to it - mustn't there?
-
Why does there have to be an elaborate conspiratorial reason for everything that happened? Just so you can argue that "it doesn't make sense that a Conspiracy would do that, therefore Oswald killed Kennedy"?
-
Why does there have to be an elaborate conspiratorial reason for everything that happened? Just so you can argue that "it doesn't make sense that a Conspiracy would do that, therefore Oswald killed Kennedy"?
There does not have to be an elaborate conspiratorial reason for everything. An argument can have epistemological warrant - i.e., be epistemologically justified - even if it is wrong. However, it cannot be epistemologically justified if the proponent cannot articulate a coherent rationale. I simply challenge CTers to articulate a rational, coherent theory as to how the designated patsy who is ostensibly shooting from the 6th floor could be allowed to be standing in full view on the front steps. You apparently cannot do it, and that's fine. Given all the Prayer Man brouhaha, however, I'm just surprised that no one can. It does tend to suggest that CTers don't think at the level of niceties like "Does this make any sense?" If your theory is that the conspirators actually were complete bumbling fools - well, OK, that's a coherent rationale of sorts, although it seems unlikely in the context of a Presidential assassination.
-
There does not have to be an elaborate conspiratorial reason for everything. An argument can have epistemological warrant - i.e., be epistemologically justified - even if it is wrong. However, it cannot be epistemologically justified if the proponent cannot articulate a coherent rationale. I simply challenge CTers to articulate a rational, coherent theory as to how the designated patsy who is ostensibly shooting from the 6th floor could be allowed to be standing in full view on the front steps. You apparently cannot do it, and that's fine. Given all the Prayer Man brouhaha, however, I'm just surprised that no one can. It does tend to suggest that CTers don't think at the level of niceties like "Does this make any sense?" If your theory is that the conspirators actually were complete bumbling fools - well, OK, that's a coherent rationale of sorts, although it seems unlikely in the context of a Presidential assassination.
Prayer man is either Oswald or it is not. It doesn't have to "make sense" to you in the context of a strawman Conspiracy with a designated patsy.
-
Prayer man is either Oswald or it is not. It doesn't have to "make sense" to you in the context of a strawman Conspiracy with a designated patsy.
In your zeal for one-line inanity, you persistently miss the point. Perhaps slow down and think? No, Prayer Person doesn't have to make sense to me. It has to make sense IN THE CONTEXT OF WHATEVER THEORY IS BEING ASSERTED BY THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS IT IS OR COULD BE OSWALD.
While I understand that you live in Kantian La-La Land where nothing is real, most people accept that Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor and that he was either up there shooting or a patsy. Any conspiracy that has him as a patsy has to explain Prayer Person IN THAT CONTEXT.
Moreover, I can think of NO theory whereby he wouldn't have been screaming "I WAS ON THE STEPS!!! TEN PEOPLE MUST'VE SEEN ME!!!" if he were, in fact, on the steps. Ergo, I am simply interested in the thinking of anyone who asserts a likelihood that Prayer Person is Oswald.
-
In your zeal for one-line inanity, you persistently miss the point. Perhaps slow down and think? No, Prayer Person doesn't have to make sense to me. It has to make sense IN THE CONTEXT OF WHATEVER THEORY IS BEING ASSERTED BY THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS IT IS OR COULD BE OSWALD.
While I understand that you live in Kantian La-La Land where nothing is real, most people accept that Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor and that he was either up there shooting or a patsy. Any conspiracy that has him as a patsy has to explain Prayer Person IN THAT CONTEXT.
Moreover, I can think of NO theory whereby he wouldn't have been screaming "I WAS ON THE STEPS!!! TEN PEOPLE MUST'VE SEEN ME!!!" if he were, in fact, on the steps. Ergo, I am simply interested in the thinking of anyone who asserts a likelihood that Prayer Person is Oswald.
Lance,
Maybe the oodles and gobs of bad guys and really, really bad gals who planned the assassination, "patsied" Oswald," killed JFK with Oswald's short-rifle, created and planted CE-399, and participated in the cover up WANTED Oswald to be photographed in the dark recesses of the front entrance -- just so we'd be arguing about his presence or non-presence there some sixty-two years after THE BIG EVENT.
-- Tom
-
In your zeal for one-line inanity, you persistently miss the point. Perhaps slow down and think? No, Prayer Person doesn't have to make sense to me. It has to make sense IN THE CONTEXT OF WHATEVER THEORY IS BEING ASSERTED BY THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS IT IS OR COULD BE OSWALD.
The only person here trying to put this into the context of a larger "theory" is YOU.
While I understand that you live in Kantian La-La Land where nothing is real, most people accept that Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor and that he was either up there shooting or a patsy.
Who appointed you the spokesperson for "most people"?
Moreover, I can think of NO theory whereby he wouldn't have been screaming "I WAS ON THE STEPS!!! TEN PEOPLE MUST'VE SEEN ME!!!" if he were, in fact, on the steps. Ergo, I am simply interested in the thinking of anyone who asserts a likelihood that Prayer Person is Oswald.
Well, obviously no people saw or remembered Prayerman or we would already know who it was. And that's not surprising given that they were all watching the motorcade. Unfortunately we know very little about what Oswald may or may not have screamed except through the filter of law enforcement.
-
Maybe the oodles and gobs of bad guys and really, really bad gals who planned the assassination, "patsied" Oswald," killed JFK with Oswald's short-rifle, created and planted CE-399, and participated in the cover up WANTED Oswald to be photographed in the dark recesses of the front entrance -- just so we'd be arguing about his presence or non-presence there some sixty-two years after THE BIG EVENT.
"Killed JFK with Oswald's short-rifle". LOL.
-
The only person here trying to put this into the context of a larger "theory" is YOU.
Who appointed you the spokesperson for "most people"?
Well, obviously no people saw or remembered Prayerman or we would already know who it was. And that's not surprising given that they were all watching the motorcade. Unfortunately we know very little about what Oswald may or may not have screamed except through the filter of law enforcement.
BINGO! You just joined Dan O'Meara in the bin of Those Who Are Simply Not Worth My Time. You, Dan and the Harvey & Lee brigade (they're in there too) can amuse each other.
If you didn't have 11,000 posts, I truly would think you might be a 15-year-old in mommy's basement. Your posts are so unfailingly witless as to be almost fascinating for their sheer neener-neener witlessness.
Right, conspiracy theorists don't need no stinkin' theory. They just need ... well, what DO they need to be conspiracy theorists anyway? Is "The Lone Nut narrative is just, like, so totally dumb, man" a theory in itself? Maybe I've been under a misapprehension that conspiracy theorists at least thought they were articulating a coherent position when in fact it's simply "The Lone Nut narrative is just, like, so totally dumb, man."
Anyway, enjoy the bin. Bye-bye.
-
BINGO! You just joined Dan O'Meara in the bin of Those Who Are Simply Not Worth My Time. You, Dan and the Harvey & Lee brigade (they're in there too) can amuse each other.
This is your go-to when you cannot respond to the points raised.
Basically what you are doing is whining that we are not arguing within the context of your narrowly defined assumptions, therefore you are going to take your ball and go home.
But not without flouncing with an insult for good measure. Which is part of the standard LN script.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Why should I be compelled to come up with one? Just so you can shift the burden away from your own failing narrative?
Like your propaganda is some gift that should be sought out and cherished?
-
This is your go-to when you cannot respond to the points raised.
Basically what you are doing is whining that we are not arguing within the context of your narrowly defined assumptions, therefore you are going to take your ball and go home.
But not without flouncing with an insult for good measure. Which is part of the standard LN script.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Why should I be compelled to come up with one? Just so you can shift the burden away from your own failing narrative?
Like your propaganda is some gift that should be sought out and cherished?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
Hahahaha! Who do you think you're kidding?
You're just copying Weidmann. Of course you're a conspiracy theorist, you continually theorize in over eleven thousand posts that it wasn't Oswald and keep elaborating on this theory by rejecting each piece of the Mountain of evidence that incriminates Oswald and in doing so, you constantly say/imply that the evidence is manipulated, the very definition of a conspiracy.
Just because you're not smart enough to figure out where all your denials lead doesn't stop you from being a grade "A" conspiracy theorist! LOL!
JohnM
-
Hahahaha! Who do you think you're kidding?
You're just copying Weidmann. Of course you're a conspiracy theorist, you continually theorize in over eleven thousand posts that it wasn't Oswald and keep elaborating on this theory by rejecting each piece of the Mountain of evidence that incriminates Oswald and in doing so, you constantly say/imply that the evidence is manipulated, the very definition of a conspiracy.
Just because you're not smart enough to figure out where all your denials lead doesn't stop you from being a grade "A" conspiracy theorist! LOL!
Now you're just flat-out lying the same way you flat-out lie about the evidence. Cite a single post where I "theorize that it wasn't Oswald" or "say/imply that the evidence is manipulated".
There is no "mountain of evidence that incriminates Oswald". It's a mountain of "Mytton" bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns.
-
"Killed JFK with Oswald's short-rifle". LOL.
Iacoletti, to whom did the Carcano belong if not Oswald?
-
Now you're just flat-out lying the same way you flat-out lie about the evidence. Cite a single post where I "theorize that it wasn't Oswald" or "say/imply that the evidence is manipulated".
There is no "mountain of evidence that incriminates Oswald". It's a mountain of "Mytton" bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns.
You can't be serious!? Just today you posted that CE399 didn't have to found at Parkland and could have come from anytime after the assassination therefore you implied that CE399 which BTW was fired from Oswald's rifle, was manufactured to incriminate Oswald. Don't you even read your own posts?
JohnM
-
Iacoletti, to whom did the Carcano belong if not Oswald?
Silly argument.
To whom did the Carcano belong if not Bozo the Clown?
-
You can't be serious!? Just today you posted that CE399 didn't have to found at Parkland and could have come from anytime after the assassination therefore you implied that CE399 which BTW was fired from Oswald's rifle, was manufactured to incriminate Oswald. Don't you even read your own posts?
There's no good reason to believe that CE399 was ever at Parkland. Do you have any evidence of that whatsoever?
P.S. "Oswald's rifle". LOL.
-
Silly argument.
To whom did the Carcano belong if not Bozo the Clown?
Perhaps Oswald's rifle was the same rifle that Oswald ordered, paid for, was sent to his PO box, was photographed with a few weeks after receiving it, was discovered on the 6th floor of where he worked and had his palmprint!
(https://i.ibb.co/cSxjYcmW/purchase-of-rifle-documents-oswald.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/LXZfjv9H/ce133b.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/hJT4VTRm/oswald-rifle-6th-floor.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/3yMYfBX1/Day-oswald-palm-print.jpg)
JohnM
-
Perhaps Oswald's rifle was the same rifle that Oswald ordered, paid for, was sent to his PO box, was photographed with a few weeks after receiving it, was discovered on the 6th floor of where he worked and had his palmprint!
Or perhaps not...
Corrections:
Unscientific and biased handwriting “analysis” of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon (from microfilm that is “missing”) purports that he filled out an order for a similar but not identical rifle. But you have no evidence or documentation of any kind showing that such a package ever went through the postal service, was delivered to the PO Box in Dallas, or that any required forms were filled out, or that any such package was signed for and picked up by Oswald or anybody else.
There's nothing connecting the money order found in Virginia to any particular Klein's order.
The rifle in the backyard photos cannot be uniquely identified.
The partial palmprint was found on an index card that showed up a week later, after the FBI found no usable prints on the actual rifle.