REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

but first a 2015 in summary

• Three books published
• production of the first Southern Hemisphere JFK conference 
• Formed a dedicated team to track down and obtain the best possible PM Darnell frame
• Formed a dedicated team to handle US FIOA requests as a service to anyone

All three books have sold moderately well given they are self-published efforts with no money backing them. All three served a purpose - a survey of the online JFK landscape, part 2 of an Oswald bio and of course, Prayer Man on the reserach of Seam Murphy. Importantly, all three have been well-received in the market-place.

The conference should be considered a learning curve. Feedback from attendees has been universally positive, but there is certainly plenty of scope for improvement, and those areas have been identified.

The Darnell team needs to be singled out for special mention. They were nothing short of heroic in this quest. That they didn't obtain the film is no reflection on them, but on those who control it.

The FOIA project never really got off the ground due to illness and other issue plaguing this particular team. We wish them a far better and happier 2016!

 ----------------------

2016 Goals

The overarching goal this year imo, should be to break the mold that has set around this case for 52 years. No more talk of conspiracies or lone nuts. No more placing this case in a bubble. No more treating it like a fable, or a parlor game. Everything we do this year should have the single purpose of getting this case "normalized". There was a murder. The sole suspect claimed innocence and was himself murdered under incredible circumstances before he could have his day in court. That is the simple starting point. Proving or disproving his alibi is the next logical step and is where the Darnell frame comes in, along with all of the other evidence amassed by Sean and others here since.

Projects

• Produce a paper on Oswald's alibi for the Education Forum. This started as a request for a paper on PM... but narrowing it to just the extant images is where all the trouble starts about "pixel studies". This paper will include PM, but it will not be the main focus. It will be placed back into the context of Oswald's alibi and how Oswald's alibi forced the (re)shaping of the Dallas Police/FBI/Warren Comission  narrative(s)

• Complete and publish volume three of Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War which will offer a whole raft of new evidence and leads.

Breakout is the key word regarding PM. Without the enormous effort from the members here, PM would have remained buried on it's host forums......just another thread. From the professional deniers we have "blurry picture", "prayer woman" or the totally ludicrous "doubtful provenance of Darnell". The forums are not ready for PM. I would reckon the public are.

Yes, I would say the public is ready for PM.

And we need to steer clear of any and all theories. Let's get Oswald cleared before we muck up the works. Once Oswald is removed from the equation, we might get a clearer view of the case.

I agree that getting Prayer Man out there should be at or near the top of the agenda and that the USA public are ready for it. Why wouldn’t they? A majority of them have believed for decades that there was a conspiracy and the “Last Investigation”, that of the US government’s own HSCA, found that to be the case.

The jury of popular opinion has decided. It’s only the covert anti-democratic forces that control US politics and the media that are suppressing the truth which is self-evident to any reasonable person. The US government has been an accessory after the fact in not following up on the findings of its own HSCA investigation in order to find out who was involved in the conspiracy.

These are facts, not opinions or theories. And anyway there is nothing wrong with the word “theory”. Theories like hypotheses are tools for thinking. They are essential to any rational investigation, whether the investigation is a scientific or a murder investigation. The covert anti-democratic forces referred to have rendered certain words taboo because for obvious reasons they wish to destroy people’s capacity as “considerers of the world” (Paulo Freire).

As to how the Prayer Man thesis should be presented, I have argued repeatedly that the BW Frazier angle should be foregrounded. Frazier is the most important witness regarding Prayer Man and Frazier has repeatedly testified indirectly but irrefutably over the past couple of years that Prayer Man is LH Oswald. No reasonable person can gainsay that evidence. Frazier’s testimony also puts paid to the last refuge to which some of the deniers have been resorting of late – photo fakery.

I hope that the Frazier angle will feature prominently in Greg’s paper for the EF and in Barto’s V2 film. The Frazier “module” is a simple self-contained sub unit of the huge amount of evidence for Prayer Man being Oswald. It is therefore the easiest, most efficient and most difficult to obfuscate means of conveying the Prayer Man thesis to the public.

Theories like hypotheses are tools for thinking. They are essential to any rational investigation, whether the investigation is a scientific or a murder investigation.

I agree, Goban.

Let me clarify -- what I'm talking about is the kind of evidence-free theorizing based around one's personal biases that you see all across the net. 

Present the evidence. If you want to give your opinion after that as to what you perceive it to mean, great! Others can make up their own minds and present alternative theories if they wish.

If the evidence is strong enough though, there's not much need for any accompanying theory. The evidence itself will tell the story.

A completely made up example -- if I were to present proof that a major witness against Oswald was related to a very powerful figure with a known motive to kill JFK - do I really need to spell out a theory? 

Let's not go down the parlor game route is all I'm asking. Strong theories require strong evidence. 

Greg at January 9, 2016 at 4:46 PM

Let me clarify -- what I'm talking about is the kind of evidence-free theorizing based around one's personal biases that you see all across the net. 

Present the evidence. If you want to give your opinion after that as to what you perceive it to mean, great! Others can make up their own minds and present alternative theories if they wish.

If the evidence is strong enough though, there's not much need for any accompanying theory. The evidence itself will tell the story.

A completely made up example -- if I were to present proof that a major witness against Oswald was related to a very powerful figure with a known motive to kill JFK - do I really need to spell out a theory? 

Let's not go down the parlor game route is all I'm asking. Strong theories require strong evidence. 

Yes, Greg, I was aware of the difference between good well-founded theories and bad ill-founded theories. What I was objecting to was the obscurantist inference that all theories are bad.

You haven’t commented on what I said about the importance of Frazier’s testimony regarding PM and my hope that you would highlight this in your paper for the EF. As this is not the first time you have ignored this when I raised it with you, naturally I have to wonder why.

Goban,

I am forced to do everything at 100 mile an hour due to having to juggle 10 different things at any given time. When I responded previously I made the mistake of assuming I must have said "no more theorizing" or words to that effect. But this is not what I said, nor what I meant.

I could have been clearer though. When I said "No more talk of conspiracies or lone nuts. No more placing this case in a bubble. No more treating it like a fable, or a parlor game." what I was trying to say was please avoid the CT vs LN trap. Let's stick to evidence and pertinent background material and what that tells us. If we need to theorise or speculate to fill in gaps in the material we have, that's fine. It was no big deal anyway. It's not like this place is filled with wild-eyed, tin-foiled hat wearers. It's not. Far from it. I just want us avoid going down that road and instead, go with reinforcing our strengths - one of which is deconstructing Oswald's alibi and what really happened during those three days. 

I wasn't aware a comment was required re Frazier. You made a statement, you didn't ask a question.

I am getting all sorts of suggestions and criticisms about something that is not even on the table yet - and will not really have a lot on PM anyway. He's been relegated to a cameo role - a hugely important cameo - but a cameo nonetheless. We have said all along that he is the ICING on the cake - not the cake itself. I refuse to hand up icing on it's own.

In short, I haven't got to PM in the first 9 pages and have no idea at this point in time, what i will say when I get to him.

Greg,

I can well imagine how busy you are and I am very appreciative of all the great work you have done and are doing on the JFK case.

What I said about theories was in response to what both you and Terry said. Terry said “And we need to steer clear of any and all theories.” However, I think you and I at least are on the same wavelength now on the subject of theories.

Regarding the paper you’re doing for the EF, I was under the impression it was to be devoted exclusively to Prayer Man. It was in that context I said I hoped you would highlight the Frazier angle. Indeed, given the pressure you are under with so many projects on hand, that would seem to be all the more reason to highlight the Frazier angle as it is such a simple clear-cut means of proving PM is Oswald.

By the way, in reviewing ROKC’s 2015 work in your opening post you cited three books published. Maybe I’m missing something but should it not be two books (your Volume Two and Stan’s Prayer Man) and one film (Barto’s Prayer Man)?

Goban,

I think Greg might have been referring to the book Foibles and Follies as one of the three books published.

Yes of course, Hasan. Thank you for that. I see from Amazon that Foibles and Follies was published in 2015, not in 2014 as I thought. Apologies to Terry.

No problem, Goban. And in reference to the theories, I was merely saying we need to clear Oswald and review the landscape anew before we start with theorizing. I think there will be more than just that single change to the case before we are through.

PM is the one solid beach head for determining the coastline of the case. He's unscrubbed. All the other solid clues have been scrubbed to lead to nowhere. The only thing standing between PM and knowing if he's Oswald is the availability of the films. Theorizing is like trying to know the coastline by reading the pattern in the waves reflected off from it. They have meaning, but are they being interpreted correctly? It takes linear algebra and there just isn't enough data for certainty in solving the equations, which is by the design of the cover up. I agree with getting scans that put Oswald on the steps (or eliminate him from them), then the rest of the theories must conform to whatever that stark reality is.

Actually all we need certainty of is the gender. If it's a guy, then it's all over. (by the way, it's a guy)

Here we go again – “theorizing”, that dirty word. As I explained above, theorising is a tool for thinking, or a kind of thinking if you like.

But the little people must not think. What’s new? In 1823 King Ferdinand VII of Spain reintroduced the Inquisition to destroy “the disastrous mania of thinking”.

And all Sean Murphy’s (theorising) work counts for nothing other than another excuse to play what Greg called parlour games.

We’ve got to wait until we get better scans which we may or may never get and which if we get them may or may not show conclusively that PM is Oswald and which if some claim they do show conclusively that PM is Oswald others will claim they don’t and then there will be a need for each side to “theorise” as to why they are right and as to why the scans are or aren’t fakes and so on and so forth the parlour games can continue ad infinitum…

Is it any wonder Sean Murphy bailed out?

Goban it's true that investigation is aided by theory. I'm just saying PM is the one solid opportunity that there is to achieve a conclusive nugget of evidence, so let's devote full focus to that as regards PM. We've had 53 years of theorization. If we can't get a conclusive result on PM's gender, then we'll have the rest of our lives for further theorization.

I'm speaking in relation to PM only. I'm all for theories. They do lead to avenues for investigation. In the case of PM we are already halfway down the avenue. We don't need theories as we drive down it the rest of the way, we just need to keep our eyes on the road to see what's at the end of it, then let the theories flourish amid whatever conclusive evidence that we find there.

Goban, the original request was for something on PM. I have taken it upon myself to change it and make it about police practices and procedures, which are the source of all the relevant issues regarding the alibi and PM. 

I'll give this one more crack about theories -- theories should not be created in a vacuum (or worse, via chery-picking to bolster personal biases), but have a sound grounding in all relevant facts. 

Again - its not a big deal because it has never been a real issue here... it's was brought up in the context of wanting us to reinforce the areas we have really started to nail shut these past few years. In any case, you know, or should know, that I don't exactly run this place with an iron fist. 

I think Greg has outlined a good plan for 2016. Few comments:

1) I hope to be able to contribute with the 3D reconstructions of Darnell, Wiegman, Hughes and Altgens6 (the one seen in the photograph but also the one which is beneath) and a couple of other doorway scenes in few months time. This step on itself does not sort anything re. identity of PM but it can ease concerns of some researchers about the location and the body height of PM relative to other people in the doorway. 

2) Theories are good and useful, however, we do not need to force ourselves to do some more theories just for theories.

3) I fear that if we once get to another copy of Darnell, which will be supposed to be the original one, that the PM will look different to what we see in the current version. This was the conspirators's sport - to generate multiple testimonies, Oswalds, guns, pictures. I think the companies have this rule as a standard cover up method in their manuals. I may be wrong though. Darnell is blurred but I have not found any evidence of tampering so far.

4) Although PM is our flagship, I think we should use any evidence which puts Oswald somewhere else than to the 6th floor. I hope to contribute in this aspect in about 3 month time. If Oswald was not on the 6th floor during shooting, he did not have to be on the 2nd floor after shooting either, and the 1st floor+doorway is what remains. 

5) I would wait with the digital reconstruction attempt of PM from the best Darnell's still for a reasonable time of about 6 months. If it is clear that there is no palpable chance to ever get to the original film, we will try to ID the PM from what we have. If the new copy of Darnell shows the PM with more details, we would not need any complicated analysis.

It occurs to me what a low threshold it is that we have to cross at this time with PM. All the heavy lifting has already been done by Sean and Greg and Barto and Stan (sorry if I've left others out). All we have left to do now is show that PM is a man, which for many is already a fate accompli. I showed my wife, explained the reflection and she immediately saw a man, no question about it. We also have Stan's book propagating in the wild and getting good reviews like in the Tulsa paper. For many, he is already male, and so, he is already Oswald. Again, we don't have that far to go down this road before we have Oswald on the steps

Some facts:

1.) All of the TSBD employees who testified they were on the steps when the motorcade passed by are accounted for. None can be Prayer Man.

2.) All of the employees testified that there were no strangers in the TSBD that day.

3.) Will Fritz's notes state Oswald said he was on the First Floor and went out in front with Bill Shelley.

4.) Billy Lovelady was the man peeking around the wall at the entrance of the TSBD building in the Altgens photo. The FBI was relieved that it was him and not Lee Oswald.

5.) All of the employees testified that there were no strangers in the TSBD that day.

6.) Will Fritz's notes state Oswald said he was on the First Floor and went out in front with Bill Shelley.

7.) Billy Lovelady was the man peeking around the wall at the entrance of the TSBD building in the Altgens photo. The FBI was relieved that it was him and not Lee Oswald.

8.) Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony rules him out as Prayer Man. His known appearance doesn't resemble Prayer Man either. Frazier identified himself in the Darnell image standing next to Prayer Man in 2014. 

9.) Harry Holmes testified that Lee Oswald said he was in or near the First Floor vestibule (front lobby between two sets of doors) by the TSBD front entrance when he encountered a police officer.

10.) Holmes' version is corroborated by what Detective Ed Hicks told the press on November 22, 1963. Holmes said Oswald wanted to see what the "commotion" was, while Hicks used the word "excitement," which is the same word Fritz used as well.

11.) The Second Floor lunchroom encounter between Marrion Baker and Lee Oswald was not in Baker's original report. Instead it described an encounter on the Fourth Floor with a man that Roy Truly vouched for as being an employee.

12.) A few days later, Baker issued a revised report that referenced the Second Floor lunchroom encounter, while dropping any mention of an encounter higher up.

13.) In their November 22, 1963 report, FBI Agents Bookhout and Hosty said Oswald claimed he (1) went to the First Floor Domino Room for lunch, and then (2) went to the Second Floor lunchroom to buy a Coke, and (3) then going to the First Floor where he was at the time of the assassination.

14.) James Jarman told the HSCA that Billy Lovelady told him that Oswald was stopped by an officer at the front entrance and vouched for by Roy Truly.

15.) Jeraldean Reid watched the motorcade with her bosses, Roy Truly and Ochus Campbell. She reentered the TSBD with Campbell where Campbell was quoted as saying that he saw Oswald in a small storage room on the ground floor.

16.) Geneva Hine testified that she saw Reid and Campbell reenter the Second Floor right after they came up the front stairs.

17.) Jeraldean Reid said she saw Oswald entering the Second Floor office area, but her testimony is contradicted by the testimony of Geneva Hine.

18.) Scientific studies show that first day statements are more reliable than later recollections.

19.) Marrion Baker never described in any recognizable form the official version of the Second Floor encounter until his March 1964 Warren Commission testimony.

20.) Marrion Baker's September 1964 clarification of his earlier Warren Commission testimony suggests he is uncertain on which floor the encounter with Lee Oswald occurred.

21.) Having started working at the TSBD only weeks prior to the assassination, Lee Oswald was not someone whose presence would especially be noticed.

22.) In addition to Prayer Man, Molina, Jones, and Lewis were also not identified by others as having been on the steps.

23.) In December 1963, a month after the assassination, Will Fritz was saying that Oswald was stopped on the Third or Fourth floor on the stairway by Baker. This was contrary to the early FBI interrogation reports and Fritz's own notes.

24.) By April 1964, Fritz again said that the Baker-Oswald encounter was on the Second Floor in the lunchroom.

25.) While in custody, Oswald didn't talk about a post-assassination Second Floor lunchroom incident. He did speak of a pre-assassination Second Floor lunchroom visit followed by a return downstairs.

26.) While Marrion Baker was giving his affidavit at Police Headquarters on November 22, he saw Lee Oswald.

27.) According to Marvin Johnson who took Baker's affidavit, Baker identified Lee Oswald as the man that he stopped on the Fourth Floor of the TSBD building.

28.) Unlike other officers, Baker is silent following the assassination on his post-assassination movements inside the TSBD. It's not until the Warren Commission "reconstructions" at the TSBD months later and his March 1964 testimony that he supports the final draft of the encounter relocated to the Second Floor lunchroom.

29.) Vicki Adams and Sandra Styles did not see Baker and Truly coming up the stairs as they came down the stairs from the Fourth to the First Floor following the assassination.

30.) A December 1, 1963 Washington Post article has Truly and Baker scrambling up the stairs to the Second Floor, then – while on the Second Floor – they make their way to the back stairs, and in the process, encounter Lee Oswald. In other words, this early version has them climbing the front steps.

31.) A first-day Case Report filed by Captain Will Fritz states that M. L. Baker identified Lee Oswald in a police lineup. This is not true.

32.) There is no record of a specific answer to the most obvious question Lee Oswald should have been asked – "Where exactly were you at the time of the assassination?" Only a general answer – "On the First Floor."

33.) That the "Fritz notes" are not contemporaneous notes taken real time by Fritz himself, but the copy he himself made of Bookhout's contemporaneous interrogation notes is supported by the fact he refers to himself ("myself") as one of the people present in the room.

34.) Jesse Curry's evolving statements to reporters over the first few days mirrors the evolving nature of Oswald being on the First Floor to the Third or Fourth Floors to the final Second Floor lunchroom encounter story.

35.) When FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover briefed President Johnson on the status of the investigation on November 29, 1963, he did not mention a Second Floor encounter between Baker and Oswald.

36.) When shown the improved Darnell image in September 2013, Buell Wesley Frazier would not identify himself, and said Shelley, possibly Lovelady, were the only two people he suggested Prayer Man could be.

37.) The Second Floor lunchroom encounter was a series of stories. The first account simply has Oswald "in" the lunchroom. Then Oswald is "sitting at one of the tables." Next, Oswald is "leaning against the counter." Then Oswald is standing at the coke machine sipping a Coca-Cola. Finally, Baker captures a "glimpse" of a man entering the lunchroom

38.) Baker doesn't even mention Oswald by name in his September 1964 statement.

39.) Dallas Police Department Chief Jesse Curry's answers to reporters on November 23, 1963 pointed to a front-of-building encounter between Lee Oswald and Marrion Baker.

40.) One month after the assassination, Fritz was still talking about Baker stopping this man on the Third or Fourth Floor on the stairway.

41.) Fritz – fully a month after the assassination – knows nothing about the Second Floor lunchroom incident.

42.) Oswald never confirmed the lunchroom incident. Oswald never confirmed a rear stairway incident. Oswald talked about an incident at the front entrance.

And oh by the way...we happen to have a low-resolution image of Prayer Man who happens to resemble Lee Oswald. Unscientific polls confirm this.

Rhetorical Question: Do these facts create any reasonable doubt in anyone's mind? Do we have any basis here for a relook at things?