Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[Bob Prudhomme]

Albert, please show us a statement where Carolyn Arnold says she saw Oswald on the 2nd floor and not the 1st floor.

I think it's well known that the researcher who approached Carolyn Arnold and showed her her FBI statement years later got her to say that the reason she went to the lunchroom was for her regular drink of water because she was pregnant. That water fountain was in the second floor lunchroom.


The 2nd floor is generally referred to as the floor on which Baker said he encountered Oswald in the lunchroom.

People say a lot of things. Do you have any documented proof of Carolyn Arnold stating she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room?

[David Josephs]

Albert, please show us a statement where Carolyn Arnold says she saw Oswald on the 2nd floor and not the 1st floor.

I think it's well known that the researcher who approached Carolyn Arnold and showed her her FBI statement years later got her to say that the reason she went to the lunchroom was for her regular drink of water because she was pregnant. That water fountain was in the second floor lunchroom.


The 2nd floor is generally referred to as the floor on which Baker said he encountered Oswald in the lunchroom.

Hey there Albert... you may find this interesting:

http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arn...ess-oswald

[Albert Doyle]

The testimony that made it to the Commission said Carolyn left at 12:15 with a group headed to the front to see the motorcade.


Golz says Mrs Arnold said 12:25 and that her alleged sighting of Oswald on the 1st floor was something she didn't say. So since we have evidence of falsification is it more or less likely that the 12:15 was also fabricated? Mrs Arnold was not invited to the Warren Commission hearings. It seems to me that anything other than the established 12:25 in the 2nd floor lunchroom, as per Mrs Arnold, would be using the Warren Report as reference.


Oh, by the way Bob, why didn't you answer this?:

As I said before and you ignored, if you went to the witness template for other Oswald sightings you would see a strong showing of speaking up from Ralph Yates to Carolyn Arnold, to Bogard, to Roger Craig, to Carousel witnesses seeing Oswald in the shadows, and all the other known Oswald sightings I'm sure you're familiar with. There is no such outward, direct case like Oswald standing right in front of everybody on the Depository front steps, with all the dozens of witnesses who would have seen him right in front of them, without any mention at all. You will find no other exposure of Oswald in the assassination with such a 100% consistency of lack of witnessing. What you are doing is trying to place Lee Harvey Oswald in the Assassination's Times Square at high noon without anyone seeing him. Again, to me this is an obvious common sense issue. I think you are trying to suggest silence by intimidation but it just doesn't play against that overall template. Your scenario still requires Oswald to mingle in with the crowd in the doorway where their attention would be on each other at the Baker juncture. It just doesn't wash Bob.

[Bob Prudhomme]

The testimony that made it to the Commission said Carolyn left at 12:15 with a group headed to the front to see the motorcade.


Golz says Mrs Arnold said 12:25 and that her alleged sighting of Oswald on the 1st floor was something she didn't say. So since we have evidence of falsification is it more or less likely that the 12:15 was also fabricated? Mrs Arnold was not invited to the Warren Commission hearings. It seems to me that anything other than the established 12:25 in the 2nd floor lunchroom, as per Mrs Arnold, would be using the Warren Report as reference.


Oh, by the way Bob, why didn't you answer this?:

As I said before and you ignored, if you went to the witness template for other Oswald sightings you would see a strong showing of speaking up from Ralph Yates to Carolyn Arnold, to Bogard, to Roger Craig, to Carousel witnesses seeing Oswald in the shadows, and all the other known Oswald sightings I'm sure you're familiar with. There is no such outward, direct case like Oswald standing right in front of everybody on the Depository front steps, with all the dozens of witnesses who would have seen him right in front of them, without any mention at all. You will find no other exposure of Oswald in the assassination with such a 100% consistency of lack of witnessing. What you are doing is trying to place Lee Harvey Oswald in the Assassination's Times Square at high noon without anyone seeing him. Again, to me this is an obvious common sense issue. I think you are trying to suggest silence by intimidation but it just doesn't play against that overall template. Your scenario still requires Oswald to mingle in with the crowd in the doorway where their attention would be on each other at the Baker juncture. It just doesn't wash Bob.

The main problem with Golz's claims re: Carolyn Arnold is that he never got signed statements nor, as Mark Lane so efficiently did with the people he interviewed, did he record his interview with Arnold (later Johnston) on film. Over the years, I have grown suspicious of singular unfounded claims such as this; both from the LN and CT camps.

The second problem is, WHY would the FBI falsify her interview to potentially place Oswald on the 1st floor, and not the 2nd floor? Not only would this cast doubt on the testimony of Truly and Baker regarding the 2nd floor encounter with Oswald, it would place Oswald one floor further away from the Sniper's Nest AND tend to corroborate any other evidence placing Oswald in the "Domino Room" on the 1st floor.

I am quite sincere about this. I would like to hear one good reason for the FBI to change Arnold's sighting from the 2nd floor to the 1st floor.

About your other question; we need go no further than Buell Wesley Frazier for the answer. He is clearly seen facing Prayer Man, yet does not ID him as Oswald. Worse, he does not ID him at all, or even recall seeing him. Can you explain that, without using the word "intimidation"?

[Donald Manning]

It's not as simple as just lying.

Truly weaved a fantasy that had him lifted to the bottom step after the shooting on a wave of hysterical people running a screaming that many still have in their heads.

Truth is, now we've correctly ID'd him after fifty years, that he continued to watch the parade after the time of the fatal shot and calmly walked back to work behind a few others.

Two seconds and twenty seconds after the FS.


Darnell suggests Baker was the first clue Roy had and the man was so oblivious, despite turning and watchingh him run toward him he doesn't even make room.

People are heading back to work and kids are allowed to skip down the street right here, where no one seems to care for their own wellbeing.


This is what he gave to us regarding the immeadiate aftremath(edited for relevance).

Mr. TRULY. I heard an explosion... Nothing happened at this first explosion. Everything was frozen. And immediately after two more explosions, which I realized that I thought was a gun...
...when the third shot rang out--there was a large crowd all along this abutment here, this little wall, and there was some around us in front--they began screaming and falling to the ground. And the people in front of myself and Mr. Campbell surged back, either in terror or panic. They must have seen this thing. I became separated from Mr. Campbell. They just practically bore me back to the first step on the entrance of our building.

He's filling in the blamks in his own head 'cause even he can't believe he missed the whole darn thing.

[Bob Prudhomme]

It's not as simple as just lying.

Truly weaved a fantasy that had him lifted to the bottom step after the shooting on a wave of hysterical people running a screaming that many still have in their heads.

Truth is, now we've correctly ID'd him after fifty years, that he continued to watch the parade after the time of the fatal shot and calmly walked back to work behind a few others.

Two seconds and twenty seconds after the FS.


Darnell suggests Baker was the first clue Roy had and the man was so oblivious, despite turning and watchingh him run toward him he doesn't even make room.

People are heading back to work and kids are allowed to skip down the street right here, where no one seems to care for their own wellbeing.


This is what he gave to us regarding the immeadiate aftremath(edited for relevance).

Mr. TRULY. I heard an explosion... Nothing happened at this first explosion. Everything was frozen. And immediately after two more explosions, which I realized that I thought was a gun...
...when the third shot rang out--there was a large crowd all along this abutment here, this little wall, and there was some around us in front--they began screaming and falling to the ground. And the people in front of myself and Mr. Campbell surged back, either in terror or panic. They must have seen this thing. I became separated from Mr. Campbell. They just practically bore me back to the first step on the entrance of our building.

He's filling in the blamks in his own head 'cause even he can't believe he missed the whole darn thing.

I didn't realize that was Truly wearing the fedora in the Darnell film. You're right, his testimony does not come even close to what really happened.

Considering how fast Baker was moving towards the front door of the TSBD, I wonder how Truly and Baker actually got together? Unless Truly springs to life the second after the Darnell film ends, which I doubt, it's going to take quite a few seconds to get him mobilized. Baker must have paused at the top of the steps and was likely asking PM for directions when Truly finally caught up with him.

I wonder how many other exaggerations Truly made in his testimony?

[Lauren Johnson]

Which guy has been finally identified as Truly? The first guy who Baker brushes by; or the second guy on the extreme right who seems to be motioning him on?

[Albert Doyle]

The main problem with Golz's claims re: Carolyn Arnold is that he never got signed statements nor, as Mark Lane so efficiently did with the people he interviewed, did he record his interview with Arnold (later Johnston) on film. Over the years, I have grown suspicious of singular unfounded claims such as this; both from the LN and CT camps.

Golz seems pretty credible to me. Are you saying he was lying? This fits the pattern of other cases of FBI being caught committing some serious lies and corruption of evidence. So the score is I don't know any cases of Golz trying to fabricate such serious evidence. As far as the record, FBI, on the other hand, practically uses falsification and intentional deception as a regular method. So which horse are you backing there Bob? I hear friends of Golz calling him a gentleman. I might be inclined to take his word.

The second problem is, WHY would the FBI falsify her interview to potentially place Oswald on the 1st floor, and not the 2nd floor? Not only would this cast doubt on the testimony of Truly and Baker regarding the 2nd floor encounter with Oswald, it would place Oswald one floor further away from the Sniper's Nest AND tend to corroborate any other evidence placing Oswald in the "Domino Room" on the 1st floor. I am quite sincere about this. I would like to hear one good reason for the FBI to change Arnold's sighting from the 2nd floor to the 1st floor.

Again, if I'm not mistaken, the terms here are taking FBI, an institution with an established motive and record for covering up a coup d'etat, at their word or taking either Carolyn Arnold or Golz at their word. It is possible by day 4 FBI decided to conflate the Oswald in the doorway sighting with Carolyn Arnold so they could dispense with her credibility at the same time as the Oswald in the doorway claim. The reason they would do that is because they needed to discredit her real 12:25 2nd floor lunchroom claim because it was dangerous.

About your other question; we need go no further than Buell Wesley Frazier for the answer. He is clearly seen facing Prayer Man, yet does not ID him as Oswald. Worse, he does not ID him at all, or even recall seeing him. Can you explain that, without using the word "intimidation"?

But I think we do. After all I have already shown you that the same Dallas cops whom the record shows did the dirty work of the mafia, CIA, FBI, and others in the assassination, were the same people who confronted Frazier that evening. The record shows they threatened to charge Frazier as an accomplice. Once you realize that Frazier could have been cracked it is perfectly reasonable to suggest he may have kept quiet about all witnessings, including Baker. Remember Bob, these are the same Dallas cops who told numerous people to keep their mouths shut. Let's look at what you're proposing here. You're proposing a man who was recorded as having serious pressure put on him equal to charges of accomplice in a presidential assassination is your source against my statistically-impossible record that is backed by not only common sense but every other case of witnessing. Hmm. I can understand why you might want to avoid the exposure issue like you did in your last answer. It's pretty reasonable that Oswald would have to had mingled with the crowd developing in the doorway at that point and that it would be impossible for him to not be sighted by numerous people. That's not how you do evidence Bob. If you have dozens of people then you have to examine each and every case. You are talking Lee Harvey Oswald walking amongst the crowd in the portal, in the glass entry, and amongst the people inside observing who was entering the Depository. I hope you can see why you can't limit this to just Frazier.

[Bob Prudhomme]

"But I think we do. After all I have already shown you that the same Dallas cops whom the record shows did the dirty work of the mafia, CIA, FBI, and others in the assassination, were the same people who confronted Frazier that evening. The record shows they threatened to charge Frazier as an accomplice. Once you realize that Frazier could have been cracked it is perfectly reasonable to suggest he may have kept quiet about all witnessings, including Baker. Remember Bob, these are the same Dallas cops who told numerous people to keep their mouths shut. Let's look at what you're proposing here. You're proposing a man who was recorded as having serious pressure put on him equal to charges of accomplice in a presidential assassination is your source against my statistically-impossible record that is backed by not only common sense but every other case of witnessing. Hmm. I can understand why you might want to avoid the exposure issue like you did in your last answer. It's pretty reasonable that Oswald would have to had mingled with the crowd developing in the doorway at that point and that it would be impossible for him to not be sighted by numerous people. That's not how you do evidence Bob. If you have dozens of people then you have to examine each and every case. You are talking Lee Harvey Oswald walking amongst the crowd in the portal, in the glass entry, and amongst the people inside observing who was entering the Depository. I hope you can see why you can't limit this to just Frazier.[/"


Okay, Albert, let's not limit ourselves to what Frazier saw or did not see. Among the other witnesses on the steps of the TSBD, can you find a statement or testimony by any of these people that mentions Prayer Man? Can you find any one of these people that ID him?

"Golz seems pretty credible to me. Are you saying he was lying? This fits the pattern of other cases of FBI being caught committing some serious lies and corruption of evidence. So the score is I don't know any cases of Golz trying to fabricate such serious evidence. As far as the record, FBI, on the other hand, practically uses falsification and intentional deception as a regular method. So which horse are you backing there Bob? I hear friends of Golz calling him a gentleman. I might be inclined to take his word."


I'm happy for you, Albert. Still, Mr. Golz has absolutely nothing to back up his story. A pity, actually.


"Again, if I'm not mistaken, the terms here are taking FBI, an institution with an established motive and record for covering up a coup d'etat, at their word or taking either Carolyn Arnold or Golz at their word. It is possible by day 4 FBI decided to conflate the Oswald in the doorway sighting with Carolyn Arnold so they could dispense with her credibility at the same time as the Oswald in the doorway claim. The reason they would do that is because they needed to discredit her real 12:25 2nd floor lunchroom claim because it was dangerous."

You are seriously confused about this issue. The first FBI report had her OUTSIDE at 12:15 when she looked back and saw Oswald on the 1st floor. It was in her second FBI interview, in March 1964, that she claimed she did not leave the building until 12:25. If the FBI was so good at lying, why not just say, in the second report, she did not leave the building until 12:14? Why confuse the issue by repeating her claim of 12:25, and give Oswald even less time to make it to the SN?

[Albert Doyle]

Okay, Albert, let's not limit ourselves to what Frazier saw or did not see. Among the other witnesses on the steps of the TSBD, can you find a statement or testimony by any of these people that mentions Prayer Man? Can you find any one of these people that ID him?

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.

I'm happy for you, Albert. Still, Mr. Golz has absolutely nothing to back up his story. A pity, actually.

Good, I'm glad I got you to say that because now we are out in open territory where we have to decide between Golz, who has high credibility, as far as I can tell, and your even more lacking proof. What you write is, at very best, against the gravity and grain of what I wrote that you are using it to avoid. As usual, what you write demands that you also practice the same standard and explain how much there is to back up the FBI source you are using - which your argument method relieves you of doing. After your answer we're right back to the same place. Golz vs FBI. Who are you backing Bob?

You are seriously confused about this issue. The first FBI report had her OUTSIDE at 12:15 when she looked back and saw Oswald on the 1st floor. It was in her second FBI interview, in March 1964, that she claimed she did not leave the building until 12:25. If the FBI was so good at lying, why not just say, in the second report, she did not leave the building until 12:14? Why confuse the issue by repeating her claim of 12:25, and give Oswald even less time to make it to the SN?

Bob, why should we have to answer to FBI lies? All you are doing is creating phantom arguments by using the corrupted FBI statements. All you need to know is Golz recorded Carolyn Arnold saying she never said that to the FBI. When we analyze what she did say it not only refutes the Prayer Man claim but most-likely puts Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom during the shooting. In my opinion making Prayer Man Oswald requires big scoops of Fetzer and FBI to make it work. It requires chasing suggestions around within FBI statements while ignoring Carolyn Arnold and Golz.