"Comrade"? This nuttiness again? What kind of a wingnut are you? Where do they find you people? It is indeed fair to ask, "Why do JFK assassination forums draw so many nut cases?" As I've told you before, if you knew anything about my politics and ideology, I'm the last person you'd call "comrade."

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Because by spewing JFKA conspiracy theories, you're a KGB (today's SVR and FSB) asset whether you realize it or not.

AKA, a "useful idiot."

Vladimir Putin cherishes you and your ilk.

-- Tom

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.

I wasn't a member of this forum when Lance posted this a year and a half ago but I whole heartedly agree. I can't understand why this individual, whether a man or a woman, draws so much fascination. Whoever it was had absolutely no involvement in the JFKA other than to witness it.

The windshield was hit from the front.

 

We have eight witnesses, including a doctor, two federal agents, and two police officers, who saw a hole in the windshield.

You have 8 people who knew JFK had been shot, saw the defect in the windshield and understandably assumed he had been shot from the front through the windshield. None of them was able to examine the windshield closely. The Secret Service agents were able to examine the windshield closely and determine that the windshield had been struck from the inside and that the missile and not gone through the windshield.

Dr. Glanges saw the hole minutes after the shooting when she saw the limo outside Parkland Hospital.

What difference does it make when she saw it. Do you think that gave her a better look at it than the Secret Service agents who examined it that night in Washington DC?

One of the police officers who saw the hole at Parkland even stuck a pencil through it.

 

In addition, the lone-gunman shooting scenario cannot explain the round dent in the chrome above the rearview mirror. The WC suggested the dent may have already been present before the shooting, but this idea was debunked decades ago with photographic evidence from the previous motorcades in Texas.   

The bullet that passed through JFK's head broke apart with some fragments leaving the limo and others striking inside the limo. One of those cracked the windshield and another likely caused the dent. Not hard to figure out.

It definitely wasn't the first shot.

Thank you for that, Captain Obvious.

Oswald didn't fire any shots.

 

NAA testing of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek shows he did not fire a rifle on 11/22/63. PSA/VSA analysis of Oswald's televised statements at the police station that he didn't shoot anyone indicate he was telling the truth.

Paraffin tests don't prove anything. They produce both false positives and false negatives. An FBI agent fired Oswald's rifle and was administered the same paraffin test and he too tested negative. Either you are pretending you didn't know that or you really don't know that which makes you are really bad researcher.

PSA/VSA tests don't prove anything either. That is why they are not admissible in court. They are used in pretrial hearings to help judges decide whether a defendant is a flight risk or not but the judge has the discretion to disregard the results of the test and make the decision on his own. They do not and cannot prove guilt or innocence. Why would you even propose that they prove Oswald was innocent?

And, there were more than three shots, as the Zapruder film alone proves to anyone who is willing to acknowledge what their eyes can plainly see.

Just how does the Zapruder film prove more than three shots. We see visual evidence of JFK and JBC being struck at about Z222 and JFK obviously being shot in the head at Z313. Evidence of an earlier missed shot lies in combining JBC's statement with what we observe him do in the Z-film prior to being shot. We see him turn to look over his right shoulder just as he said he did upon hearing the first shot. While not proof positive, it is still highly probative. Beyond that, there is no visual evidence of any other gunshot. 

"Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film"

The numerous witnesses who reported hearing shots from the grassy knoll and/or four or more shots were not dreaming.

Most witnesses remember hearing three shots. Some only remembered hearing two. Those who thought they heard four or more shots were a small minority.

There were numerous witnesses who said all the shots came from the GK and numerous others who said all the shots came from the TSBD. Do you think the latter group was dreaming? CTs never want to apply the same questions to their beliefs that they apply to the WC findings. Why is that.

The simple fact is both groups cannot be right. One or the other has to be wrong. The way to determine which group got it right is to look at other evidence.  We had eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman on the 6th floor of the TSBD. No eyewitnesses to a GK shooter. Thress spent shells were found at the location where witnesses had seen the gunman. A rifle was found a short distance away that was positively matched to the shells that were found and also to the only two recovered bullets. No shells or weapon was found on the GK.
Every qualified medical examiner who has reviewed the medical evidence has agreed both JFK and JBC were shot from behind. There is no medical evidence of a shot from in front of or to the right of the victims. Even Dr. Cyril Wecht who believed there was a frontal shooter did not base that belief on medical evidence but on his interpretation of what the Z-film showed. As a film analyst he was no more qualified than you or me. Both of you are entitled to your opinion but those opinions are not evidence that any court would accept as valid.

The single piece of 'evidence' identifying the men as Shelley and Lovelady is the doctored image Bart Kamp "sharpened".
It is this single piece of highly questionable 'evidence' you have based your identification on.
Unfortunately, you lack the courage to admit this, which is in keeping with the way you have conducted yourself on this forum.

   I believe the Darnell still frame showing that figure standing in almost the identical position we see Lovelady standing in on Algens 6, is far more convincing than the Kamp Mickey Mouse'd image. And they never attempt to ID the other fellow walking down the Elm St Extension. Why is that? Because they can't pin a Shelley ID on him.

so it’s Sean Murphy’s prayerman or raff sink’s doorwayman.  any other possibilities?