07-03-2014, 06:06 AM
Bob Prudhomme Wrote: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:
Quote: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.