Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[Bob Prudhomme]

Albert

If you go through the statements and testimonies of the people on the front steps of the TSBD, you often find them telling who they were out on the steps with. However, not a single one of them mentions a short guy back in the west corner at the top of the steps with something shiny in his hands; not even Frazier who is apparently looking directly at him at one point.

Don't you find this a bit odd?

I think my points deserve a better answer. I kind of consider your ignoring them a concession.

Not my problem you're upset, just because you can't respond to my questions. As I said, don't you find it odd that no one on the steps recalls PM, whether or not anyone ID'd him as Oswald?

[LR Trotter]

If no one mentioned PrayerMan, but 3 known witnesses mentioned Ms Sarah Stanton being in the doorway area, at least to me, indicates, repeat indicates, a possibility that PrayerMan is actually a female, and Ms Sarah Stanton is possibly that person. If PM is not the person known as Lee Harvey Oswald, that does not, repeat does not, place him in any window firing any gun at the JFK limousine. I don't believe LHO shot anyone on 11/22/63.
If it is neccessary to place LHO in the PM location, I fail to see a reason why. I am not a researcher, but I have been a student of the JFK Assassination Research for some years now, and I am still learning.
I only seek to know the truth, and only express my opinions based on my study of the research. If I am wrong, so be it.
::

[Albert Doyle]

Not my problem you're upset, just because you can't respond to my questions. As I said, don't you find it odd that no one on the steps recalls PM, whether or not anyone ID'd him as Oswald?

My question that you've been repeatedly dodging came first:

You're switching the subject again Bob. I already answered what you are asking yet again. That answer is that for Prayer Man to be Oswald would require the dozens of people actively seen in Darnell headed towards the portal to miss him. As I've repeated several times, if you go to the full template of all Oswald witnessings you won't find such a profound exposure, like Oswald standing in broad daylight in the Assassination's Times Square, where there was zero witnessing. I see what you're doing. You're trying to suggest that the lack of any witnessing of Prayer Man makes the likelihood of it being Oswald stronger, however that isn't how it works. The way it works is you have to account for how the number of witnesses clearly shown in Darnell would escape the established statistical norm of Oswald sightings? I think you are trying to hide the obvious impossibility of so many people not seeing Oswald on the front steps behind suggestive arguments. At that point I think the onus is not to explain why no one identified Prayer Man, but why no one identified Oswald standing right out in the open in front of dozens of people, as well as mingling in the glass entryway on his way back in where people were paying attention. I honestly don't think the lack of identification of Prayer Man either lives up to or answers this. Again, I feel you are conflating speculation in front of facts you can't answer. I believe if you were forced to answer this you would be forced to wander into Fetzer territory where you would have to account for the fringe witnesses seeing Oswald in the portal being tracked down by the cover-up squad and told to shut-up. Like I said before, it just doesn't wash. There's too many people who would have seen him standing right there. And even worse being shoulder to shoulder in the glass entry.

Whether you realize it or not the question you responded with doesn't answer the above (which I think we both know is why you're doing it). An evasive lower quality question does not trump a higher quality one. You don't own the chessboard Bob. You are trying to use a rook as a queen but the rules don't work that way. I can respond to your questions no problem. In fact I've done it so well people can see you're ducking answering my points.


Let's keep this simple. Let's prove the value of your approach by having you answer one simple question. How did your elusive Oswald avoid being seen when he was shoulder to shoulder amongst the people right inside the glass doorway? You are trying to use a magic trick of saying there must have been some kind of doctoring of the witnessing. But that isn't how it works. You have to explain how that was done by means of each and every witness at each instance of witnessing. Be honest. Are you saying FBI tracked down every single person who saw Oswald there and shut them up? Because if you are you have to explain why the Tippit case had so many witnesses willing to expose the conflicts while the Times Square of the assassination had none? Whether you realize it or not this is what is oddly missing the most more than anything else. Don't duck with that question, answer this greater problem.


Bob, if it was Oswald you would have seen the murder of witnesses like you did with Tippit and others. Sorry but whether you can respond to that point or not, you can't have a virgin negative rate for witnesses according to the recorded statistical average. This is a point you refuse to recognize or answer and I think we know why.

[LR Trotter]

After Mr Prudhomme replied with a quote of my post, I noticed I used ST when referring to Ms Sarah Stanton, I should have used SS, and I corrected my original post.
::doh::

[Bob Prudhomme]

If no one mentioned PrayerMan, but 3 known witnesses mentioned Ms Sarah Stanton being in the doorway area, at least to me, indicates, repeat indicates, a possibility that PrayerMan is actually a female, and Ms Sarah Stanton is possibly that person. If PM is not the person known as Lee Harvey Oswald, that does not, repeat does not, place him in any window firing any gun at the JFK limosine. I don't believe LHO shot anyone on 11/22/63.
If it is neccessary to place LHO in the PM location, I fail to see a reason why. I am not a researcher, but I have been a student of the JFK Assassination Research for some years now, and I am still learning.
I only seek to know the truth, and only express my opinions based on my study of the research. If I am wrong, so be it.
::

It may be possible but, it is unlikely in the extreme. The entrance to the TSBD was wider than you think. Pauline Sanders stated she was on the EAST side of the entrance, and she further stated Sarah Stanton was standing BESIDE her; not one or two persons away from her. After that, we can see, in Darnell, the tall gangly Buell Wesley Frazier standing approximately in the middle of the entrance. Further WEST of Frazier, in fact as far WEST as you can go in the entrance, we have Prayer Man. Between Pauline Sanders statement about being on the EAST side of the entrance, and PM obviously being on the far side of the entrance in the Darnell still, how can you possibly conceive PM as being Sarah Stanton with nothing more than an unfinished sentence from Billy Lovelady to back you up?

[Bob Prudhomme]

Not my problem you're upset, just because you can't respond to my questions. As I said, don't you find it odd that no one on the steps recalls PM, whether or not anyone ID'd him as Oswald?

My question that you've been repeatedly dodging came first:

You're switching the subject again Bob. I already answered what you are asking yet again. That answer is that for Prayer Man to be Oswald would require the dozens of people actively seen in Darnell headed towards the portal to miss him. As I've repeated several times, if you go to the full template of all Oswald witnessings you won't find such a profound exposure, like Oswald standing in broad daylight in the Assassination's Times Square, where there was zero witnessing. I see what you're doing. You're trying to suggest that the lack of any witnessing of Prayer Man makes the likelihood of it being Oswald stronger, however that isn't how it works. The way it works is you have to account for how the number of witnesses clearly shown in Darnell would escape the established statistical norm of Oswald sightings? I think you are trying to hide the obvious impossibility of so many people not seeing Oswald on the front steps behind suggestive arguments. At that point I think the onus is not to explain why no one identified Prayer Man, but why no one identified Oswald standing right out in the open in front of dozens of people, as well as mingling in the glass entryway on his way back in where people were paying attention. I honestly don't think the lack of identification of Prayer Man either lives up to or answers this. Again, I feel you are conflating speculation in front of facts you can't answer. I believe if you were forced to answer this you would be forced to wander into Fetzer territory where you would have to account for the fringe witnesses seeing Oswald in the portal being tracked down by the cover-up squad and told to shut-up. Like I said before, it just doesn't wash. There's too many people who would have seen him standing right there. And even worse being shoulder to shoulder in the glass entry.

Whether you realize it or not the question you responded with doesn't answer the above (which I think we both know is why you're doing it). An evasive lower quality question does not trump a higher quality one. You don't own the chessboard Bob. You are trying to use a rook as a queen but the rules don't work that way. I can respond to your questions no problem. In fact I've done it so well people can see you're ducking answering my points.


Let's keep this simple. Let's prove the value of your approach by having you answer one simple question. How did your elusive Oswald avoid being seen when he was shoulder to shoulder amongst the people right inside the glass doorway? You are trying to use a magic trick of saying there must have been some kind of doctoring of the witnessing. But that isn't how it works. You have to explain how that was done by means of each and every witness at each instance of witnessing. Be honest. Are you saying FBI tracked down every single person who saw Oswald there and shut them up? Because if you are you have to explain why the Tippit case had so many witnesses willing to expose the conflicts while the Times Square of the assassination had none? Whether you realize it or not this is what is oddly missing the most more than anything else. Don't duck with that question, answer this greater problem.


Bob, if it was Oswald you would have seen the murder of witnesses like you did with Tippit and others. Sorry but whether you can respond to that point or not, you can't have a virgin negative rate for witnesses according to the recorded statistical average. This is a point you refuse to recognize or answer and I think we know why.

Forget about PM being Oswald for the moment. Here is another good question for you. Is there anyone on the steps of the TSBD, other than PM, that has not been identified?

[LR Trotter]

Mr Prudhomme, I based my opinion on the statements of Pauline Saunders, Billy N Lovelady, and Buell W Frazier, and not as you say only the unfinished sentence of Billy N Lovelady. How do you know the sentence is unfinished? Repeat, how do you know? Do you live in Texas? Actually it is possible he was adding information about the location of Sarah Stanton. Maybe he was nervous and jumbled his phrasing. That's possible. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but it appears BNL as well as BWF, did not master the English language. Nor do I. Hopefully this issue can be resolved, but in the meantime we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't, at this point, believe there is sufficient evidence to disqualify Sarah Stanton as possibly being the person thought to be PrayerMan. Unless additional evidence becomes available, either way, I see no point in continuing to post our disagreement.
::vroom::

[Bob Prudhomme]

Mr Prudhomme, I based my opinion on the statements of Pauline Saunders, Billy N Lovelady, and Buell W Frazier, and not as you say only the unfinished sentence of Billy N Lovelady. How do you know the sentence is unfinished? Repeat, how do you know? Do you live in Texas? Actually it is possible he was adding information about the location of Sarah Stanton. Maybe he was nervous and jumbled his phrasing. That's possible. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but it appears BNL as well as BWF, did not master the English language. Nor do I. Hopefully this issue can be resolved, but in the meantime we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't, at this point, believe there is sufficient evidence to disqualify Sarah Stanton as possibly being the person thought to be PrayerMan. Unless additional evidence becomes available, either way, I see no point in continuing to post our disagreement.
::vroom::

Outside of the fact the evidence points to Stanton and PM being on opposite sides of the entrance, you might have a case. ::headbang::

[Donald Manning]

My first knowledge of DPD Captain Will Fritz almost striking Buell Wesley Frazier over a refusal to sign a document, as well as BWF's response to WF's actions, came this year (2014) after viewing a Youtube video presentation moderated by Hugh Aynesworth from an earlier date.

Thank's Larry that's one of many recent tellings.
I'm sure I heard that he's been repeating his story to tourists over the last few years but don't quote me on that.

I noticed it had a strong connection to a similar account from another infamous Dallas murder case.
Gus Rose worked under Fritz and actually picked Frazier up(as well as a few techniques).


I first thought it supported Frasier's claim but unless I get proof he's been saying it for twenty years or more I can't tell.


"Ri-Diclus".(Texlish)

[Donald Manning]

Outside of the fact the evidence points to Stanton and PM being on opposite sides of the entrance, you might have a case. ::headbang::

Alongside that, the images show no hint of the figure being a woman other than this idea that it's holding a purse(or a gun for all we know right?), around forty other researchers completely satisfied it's a male, most likely from the hairline I suppose, also shoulders, stance, "dress" and build.
I'll guess it's holding a gun okay, so now it's a shooter. Same logic. Hi Duncan.


As for no witnesses.
Twenty four seconds. That's the time he is on film in the doorway.
Motorcade hit the intersection about ten seconds before that Wiegman evidence.
Let's say a minute and with that he follows Baker inside.
It's not that big of a deal for me and I'm far from believing it yet let alone convinced.

Frazier must have seen him standing there but really that's all and we see him look at PM a[U]fter the shooting
[/U]only just but that's all Fritz would need.

"If you insist on giving him an alibi then sign the confession".
Easier to picture than Frazier actually standing up to him.
PM's there for a minute and Frazier looks at him.
That's all.


Can you believe one of these witnesses actually went back inside to grab lunch and had no clue what had happened? Amazing.
How about twenty of them? Thirty? I know, crazy.

How about 99% of those in Darnell and Weigman had no clue?
Impossible?
I mean even Frazier knew a shooting when he heard one, right?


Charles Hester.
Sitting on a bench, while his wife stands next to it.
He says he felt he was in the direct line of fire, yes that's what he said, quite a powerful statement.
Yet the Wfilm says he only reacted after the Newmans hit the deck.
That is, he sat there while he and his wife were "in the line of fire" and for about seven seconds after that explosion inside the limo.

From the Unger collection.


Now that's what I call ridiclus.