Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[Albert Doyle]

Prayer Man got rolling by pointing out that the 2nd fl lunch room encounter was a complete hoax, Greg Parker pushed this a decade ago and Sean Murphy followed soon after.

Bart,

I consider Greg Parker an obnoxious bs artist who has been repeatedly caught fabricating and spinning evidence against its true interpretation. Just look at his rendering of Carolyn Arnold that is now sitting in a pile on his lap.

I've seen the claims over Baker's lunch-room encounter. They are based upon the fact that he omitted it in his first report. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I believe there are sound reasons to think that Baker omitted the lunch-room encounter for the same reason that DPD omitted the interviews at the police station. By your logic we could simplistically say that since the Dallas Police omitted any record of Oswald's interrogation that therefore the interrogation never happened. But we know that isn't true don't we?

The lunch-room encounter has not been disproven. We still have Carolyn Arnold seeing Oswald at 12:24-12:25. That would place Oswald in the lunch-room 7 minutes before Baker encountered him. Your unproven assertion places Oswald as Prayer Man by inference. Meanwhile we have one witness placing Oswald in the lunch-room (Two if you count Baker). The front steps? Zero out of dozens of potential witnesses.


"A complete hoax"? I disagree.

the thing about Carolyn Arnold isn't important either.
From a timing p.o.v. that is, what matters is that she saw him in the 2nd fl lunch room (sitting?????) before the shooting and that of course messes w the entire Truly/Baker/Oswald scenario which actually happened on the 1st floor.

No, not important. That's right, a woman who places Oswald comfortably eating his lunch in the 2nd floor lunch-room at 12:24 where he was encountered 7 minutes later by Officer Baker isn't important, no. And it isn't likely that CIA-assigned Harvey, who was gotten out of the way by being given a duty to be in the lunch-room (a place his handlers knew would be empty because everyone would be outside to see the popular president), would be there obeying orders - no.

Your overly general, simplistic brush-off of the Carolyn Arnold witnessing runs roughshod across some of the most sensitive, important evidence. We can just skip the detail that if Carolyn Arnold wasn't pregnant that she wouldn't have gone to the water fountain in the lunch-room in order to quench her thirst like she regularly did as part of her pre-natal routine.

Like Greg, you are assuming your contrived logic puts the Baker event on the 1st floor, but like Greg you infer things from the evidence that may have no basis whatsoever. The Carolyn Arnold timing is very important. Not only does it show that Oswald was most-likely eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch-room during the shooting, but Greg's bungling of it is a very good barometer of his credibility. Like Greg, you assemble loose straws as a firm platform.

Earl Golz's article is 15 years after the fact, yet you hang a colossal weight on it like it is THE SMOKING GUN and it simply isn't.

Why? Because you wave your hand and say so? Your analysis of the details behind the Golz witnessing is impressive Bart. Time has nothing to do with the Golz issue. Carolyn Arnold merely confirmed what she told FBI in March 1964, that she left the building at 12:25. She also said that she never said 12:15, as FBI claimed in their November 26 1963 report. She also denied ever saying she saw Oswald on the 1st floor as FBI claimed in that same report. For you to give no notice to evidence of FBI fabricating witnessing in that report makes you uncredible Bart. Greg also committed the same offense and pressed the FBI lies.

Prayer Man is not just a picture, it is supported by the evidence

Sure, this isn't easily decided by a photo of a woman holding a purse clenched in her hands in a woman's posturing position with long hair. What's painfully obvious about this is the hair tones shown in Duncan's Darnell blow-up belong, without a doubt, to Prayer Man's hair and nothing else. The dark tone where we know there's hair at the top of the head is identical to the same dark tone down by the neck. In other words they're both hair. Unless someone can explain what else that dark tone is besides hair then it is scientifically sound to assume it is hair. And once you determine Prayer Man has long woman's hair that means Prayer Man isn't Oswald. Duncan's not outlining the extending woman's hairstyle according to his imagination, he's doing it according to the dark hair tone he is seeing. Answering this with 'degraded image' and 'pixels' does not live up to this superior, valid observation and argument. Unfortunately Bart violates the "Do you believe the arguments or your own lying eyes?" rule.