Prayer Woman

[Thomas Graves]

Mike,

I posted:


Brian,

You always seem to shoot yourself in the foot.

I wasn't banned from the EF because I was claiming that Prayer Person couldn't be Oswald, but because Mikey had baited me with three successive, short, non-contributing, asinine posts on a thread (after Kathy Beckett had sternly warned both of us in PMs to behave ourselves while was on her away-from-Internet vacation in Europe), waited for me to "rise" to said insults and to post something sarcastic in reply, and then, like a rat, very quickly deleted his offending posts so that Beckett wouldn't see them when she "checked in," but would see my outrageous reply, instead.

-- MWT 



You replied:

That is fantasy,  Thomasitayuritovich. While you allowed yourself, and still do, the freedom to post, ad nauseam, your Bagley/spy wars plug, you completely lost your cookies when I set-out to begin answering (yes, ad-nauseum) them with my Howard Olson document which, as John Newman messaged me, served the purpose of “spiking Pete’s career”. Pete is Pete Bagley, for clarity.

That’s it. You made the rest of that up.

Mike,

You don't remember the three, consecutive, short, inane, "covering," non-contributing-to-the-thread posts you made on May 20, 2017, on page 1 of my new thread "For Chris Newton, Larry Hancock, Tracy Parnell and Other Critically-Minded Members"

Here's a screen shot of the pertinent part of that page, with your comments highlighted in bold text:


Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted unnecessarily abrasive post.
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Unnecessary, OT post
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Thomas Graves]

Mike,

I posted:


Brian,

You always seem to shoot yourself in the foot.

I wasn't banned from the EF because I was claiming that Prayer Person couldn't be Oswald, but because Mikey had baited me with three or four same-hour, successive, short-and- assinine posts on a thread (after Kathy Beckett had sternly warned both of us in PMs to behave ourselves while was on her away-from-Internet vacation in Europe), waited for me to "rise" to said insults and to post something sarcastic in reply, and then, like a rat, very quickly deleted his offending posts so that Beckett wouldn't see them when she "checked in," but would see my outrageous reply, instead.

-- MWT 



You replied:

"That is fantasy,  Thomasitayuritovich. While you allowed yourself, and still do, the freedom to post, ad nauseam, your Bagley/spy wars plug, you completely lost your cookies when I set-out to begin answering (yes, ad-nauseum) them with my Howard Olson document which, as John Newman messaged me, served the purpose of “spiking Pete’s career”. Pete is Pete Bagley, for clarity.

That’s it. You made the rest of that up."





Mike,

You don't remember the three, consecutive, short, inane, "covering," non-contributing-to-the-thread posts you made on May 20, 2017, on page 1 of my new thread "For Chris Newton, Larry Hancock, Tracy Parnell and Other Critically-Minded Members" ? ? ?

Here's a "copy and paste" of the pertinent part of that page, with your comments highlighted in bold text:


Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted unnecessarily abrasive post.
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Unnecessary, OT post
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Edited and posted for Mike Clark to prevaricate about.

-- MWT 

[Mark A. Oblazney]

Manipulation is not your strong suit.

I still think it was a dude taking pictures with a camera.  And tell us more about Mary Pinchot Meyer, Albert. Inquiring minds want to know, uh...... have you taken a bath yet?

[Barry Pollard]

Hughes and Lovelady in harmony, take a long hard look at his position pls Brian.

There is more than a hint of BWF in the above* and PM too but I'm wondering if Chris, or anyone really, could try and make them easier for us to see, if he/they haven't already.

*Girl in blue is bleeding into the area surrounding her and BWF was apparently wearing blue too(according to Bell) but look at Carl Jones' (the guy in front of BL)arm in front of the pillar, there's some nice definition there from that distance.  I think we see(we do) a flash of Buell's hand and blue shirted arm but apart from that I'd really like to know if we can let everyone see the person behind Lovelady in Hughes or not.  He/she/something seems to be fading in and out.

[Barry Pollard]

I am hoping that someone might take a look at the Hughes frames and try to enhance what's behind Lovelady but I suppose it's common sense really that PrayerMAN('cause that is what Darnell tell's us) is already in position ten seconds before he was caught by Wiegman.  I doubt everyone can see the quick, little flash of the head shaped thing but it's interesting to see you swallowing it already Brian because I don't remember you talking about it much, if at all.

[Barry Pollard]

Nothing anyone has said, or will say, or can be made to say, will make me change my mind.  Untill I see hard, realible evidence, PM is exactly that, a man.  This Stanton stuff is complete nonsense and you all know it is and you know I know it is and I even know that you know I know it is because I done told you already, so don't even involve me in your games, I'll stay out of it if you let me because there's other interesting stuff to consider that we can agree or agree to dissagree on.  This he said she said stuff is for the birds.  HAND.

[Barry Pollard]

But it's not clear whether he really heard what he knew was gunfire because of Darnell and his description of his reaction to Calvary's news.  Did he turn to tell Stanton how good Jackie looked?  That's not clear either, one interview he says he did but in another he mearly thought it to himself.  Did he ask Sarah "did she(GC) just say the President was hit"?  Or did he not? Again, depending on the interviews as a whole it's not clear and was she to his right or left?  Again, pick two interviews and you can have it either way to support your case.  It's a well known pattern, the more interviews they give the more answers we get to the same questions.