David Josephs Wrote:The real question to ask remains - where is Wesley?
Mr. BALL - Then let's see, there was Billy Lovelady and you were there. Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - Anybody else you can remember? Mr. FRAZIER - There was a lady there, a heavy-set lady who worked upstairs there whose name is Sarah something, I don't know her last name. Mr. BALL - Were you near the steps? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I was, I was standing about, I believe, one step down from the top there. Mr. BALL - One step down from the top of the steps? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; standing there by the rail. Mr. BALL - By steps we are talking about the steps of the entrance to the Building? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Where is Wesley in Weigman (third photo down on the right) while Lovelady is at the exact spot he claimed he was...
Where is Wesley in Altgens?
Why is Lovelady not down a few steps?
Mr. BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. (Altgens) Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here. Mr. BALL - I see. Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.
Uh, not so much
Good evening, Mr. Josephs, nothing like asking all of the right questions, but then again you've always seem to have that knack.
So sad that MUCH of the evidence in this case is stained and tainted behind fuzzy rendered images to conceal the honest to goodness truth.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Alan, with most of the TSBD employees (especially the women), we have no contemporary photographs or physical descriptions of them. Quite a few gave only very general statements about where they were standing, not specific enough to be sure if they might be prayer man/woman.
Mr Riddle, sometime back, a still current researcher, but former poster on this forum, pointed out something about the image I refer to a PrayerPerson. He indicated a possible facial feature that may be looking slightly right, and towards the camera. And, although my first response was that PP is looking slightly left, after his observation, which may have included a possible double exposure, I have not been able to discern which direction the image of PP may be facing. And, I am only questioning a head turn, and not the complete image. Just curious about other thoughts.
I personally think that a vast amount of time has been spent on a fuzzy, blurry, shadowy image that will never be accepted by most people as conclusive proof of anything.
Speaking of testimony, I wonder, as I wander, just what Mr Buell Wesley Frazier means when he comments that Ms Sarah Stanton had been standing next to him "in the shadows of the doorway", or words to that effect.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Alan, with most of the TSBD employees (especially the women), we have no contemporary photographs or physical descriptions of them. Quite a few gave only very general statements about where they were standing, not specific enough to be sure if they might be prayer man/woman.
Mr Riddle, sometime back, a still current researcher, but former poster on this forum, pointed out something about the image I refer to a PrayerPerson. He indicated a possible facial feature that may be looking slightly right, and towards the camera. And, although my first response was that PP is looking slightly left, after his observation, which may have included a possible double exposure, I have not been able to discern which direction the image of PP may be facing. And, I am only questioning a head turn, and not the complete image. Just curious about other thoughts.
I personally think that a vast amount of time has been spent on a fuzzy, blurry, shadowy image that will never be accepted by most people as conclusive proof of anything.
I do believe that Mr Riddle more or less "nailed it" with that comment.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Alan, with most of the TSBD employees (especially the women), we have no contemporary photographs or physical descriptions of them. Quite a few gave only very general statements about where they were standing, not specific enough to be sure if they might be prayer man/woman.
Mr Riddle, sometime back, a still current researcher, but former poster on this forum, pointed out something about the image I refer to a PrayerPerson. He indicated a possible facial feature that may be looking slightly right, and towards the camera. And, although my first response was that PP is looking slightly left, after his observation, which may have included a possible double exposure, I have not been able to discern which direction the image of PP may be facing. And, I am only questioning a head turn, and not the complete image. Just curious about other thoughts.
I personally think that a vast amount of time has been spent on a fuzzy, blurry, shadowy image that will never be accepted by most people as conclusive proof of anything.
I do believe that Mr Riddle more or less "nailed it" with that comment.
Sometimes you have to work with what ya got...
That IS a person
The exact whereabouts of Oswald at these times is unknown
People do not remember exact details but their perceptions of the reality they experienced
The evidence in this case IS the conspiracy.... The "official" line is Oswald was in the window... that Oswald could not have been PM since he was in the window shooting.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied....
Until firmly established to the contrary, PM could be Oswald... blurry image or not. Lack of witness confirmation for lack of proper questioning, happened.
If Oswald was not in the lunchroom, ie Truly/Baker encounter never happened, what is the first bit of information we have about Oswald's whereabouts immediately after the shooting?
In both the notes and his report Fritz tells us Truly told him the address in Irving... Elsbeth is listed on the Police roster of employees... How did the DPD get the Beckley address for OH Lee?
The one and only Officer "Some Officer" knew Oswald lived at Beckley - wonder who that might be?
My point is it all interconnects and there will be times when a fuzzy photo will not shed light yet the surrounding evidence and info will...
How many people in 1964 were looking at a single frame of any of these films? What we do know is how spooked the FBI was over Lovelady in Altgens
DJ
Mr. FRITZ. When I started to talk to this prisoner or maybe just before I started to talk to him, some officer told me outside of my office that he had a room on Beckley, I don't know who that officer was, I think we can find out, I have since I have talked to you this morning I have talked to Lieutenant Baker and he says I know maybe who that officer was, but I am not sure yet. Mr. BALL. Some officer told you that he thought this man had a room on Beckley? Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he did after he left the building? Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. What did he say? Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show.
Mr. BALL. Now, in this first conversation he told you that he had lived at 1026 Beckley, didn't he? Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. He didn't know whether it was north or south. Mr. BALL. And you sent a group of officers out there to search that address? Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; that is right.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
In response, if Lee Harvey Oswald is not in the doorway area at the time of the JFK assassination, that absolutely does not, by itself, place him on any floor firing a gun at the motorcade. In my opinion, the LoneGunmanTheory is just that, a theory. And then, even if a LoneGunman did the shooting, which I do not believe, that also does not point to Lee Harvey Oswald as being that LoneGunman. At this point, I have not seen any substantial evidence indicating LHO was not in the lunchroom area at the time the shots were fired.
Actually, one TSBD lady did see a stranger, according to the written statements at DPD. It seems likely, however, she is describing Amos Euins' "Construction Man," who was not on the steps or in the alcove.
I have a challenge for you, Allen. If you can meet this challenge, I will be happy to agree with you.
Quote: (paraphrasing) Everyone has a name. Everyone else has already shared in sworn testimony where they stood that afternoon (none of them by the way stood in the Sniper's Nest). For those who wish to override the evidence that places Oswald at the window, just give your choice a specific name.
Who is standing in that window?
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Drew Phipps Wrote:Actually, one TSBD lady did see a stranger, according to the written statements at DPD. It seems likely, however, she is describing Amos Euins' "Construction Man," who was not on the steps or in the alcove.
I have a challenge for you, Allen. If you can meet this challenge, I will be happy to agree with you.
Quote: (paraphrasing) Everyone has a name. Everyone else has already shared in sworn testimony where they stood that afternoon (none of them by the way stood in the Sniper's Nest). For those who wish to override the evidence that places Oswald at the window, just give your choice a specific name.
Who is standing in that window?
Good point Drew. Alan has been told repeatedly why his challenge isn't credible. With some people's help he has now set up an ROKC branch on this forum in order to ignore that which refutes what he writes and re-enter the same flawed arguments.
The photogrammetry is actually with the height argument once intelligently rendered.
Given the specific photo you shared, Mr. Phipps, and the element of time and space, I can only tell you at this point it isn't Prayer Man.
However, perhaps if the authorities had given Mr. Rowland's (Arnold) observations the time of day, instead if ignoring his sighting of at least two figures, their identification would be more apparent. But like so much in this case, anything contrary to the scripted fairytale is avoided like a plague. Why?
There's a reason for that.
Now, entering Day Two (2), the specifics scorecard still reads the same ---->
The wrongfully accused (3) (where were you? "out front"; with who? "Billy Shelley"; and, no one else places their position in his specific location)
prayer woman (0), no specific name, let alone any specific details, which given most women's propensity to talk, no offense to Em or any other women, we should have at least something however remote to go on. Fails the "any strangers" litmus test.
prayer person (0) no specific name, let alone any specific details. Also fails the "any strangers" litmus test.
Drew is saying that by your logic, since you can't actually name the person seen in the 6th floor window, that you must accept it was Oswald. He's trying to show the flaw in your argument and how it is often used by Lone Nutters in the same way to deny evidence. Blowing harder with ROKC rhetoric won't compensate for this.
Still waiting for David Josephs to return and honestly discuss Darnell's lens and how reasonable conclusions can be drawn from it that counter what he previously wrote. - Since David is such a photo expert...
