Challenge

[Tracy Riddle]

The point is, where do you go next with this fuzzy photograph? We already have much better evidence of Oswald's innocence that you can't get the media/government to pay any attention to (and almost all of us agree on). PM is an interesting thing to go hmmm about, but beyond that I don't see where it leads.

[Alan Ford]

The point is, where do you go next with this fuzzy photograph? We already have much better evidence of Oswald's innocence that you can't get the media/government to pay any attention to (and almost all of us agree on). PM is an interesting thing to go hmmm about, but beyond that I don't see where it leads.

A valid point, Mr. Riddle @ We already have much better evidence of Oswald's innocence that you can't get the media/government to pay any attention to (and almost all of us agree on).

The exclamation point upon all of that evidence is the emergence of Prayer Man. The media is not part of the solution here. A Free Press, however, as intended by the Founding Fathers would have already placed an exclamation point many times over around Mr. Oswald's innocent.

Current count on the specifics in this matter:

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.

Thus the Challenge, easy to offer generics but difficult to offer any specifics. There is a reason for that.

Prayer Man, however, has offered multiple specifics. There is also a reason for that.

Speaking of specifics more detailed information relative to Prayer Man is just a ciick away ----> http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/prayer-man-faq

[Albert Doyle]

The point is, where do you go next with this fuzzy photograph?

I think we're well past this.

[Alan Ford]

Three years ago, Mr. Murphy (Sean) shared a couple of interesting tidbits further supporting the wrongfully accused's position. In the first one, he shares an actual first day account of a policeman meeting the wrongfully accused right at the front door. The source of that genuine encounter was Chief Jesse Curry.

In the 2nd instance Mr. Murphy shares with us, we find the building superintendent, Mr. Truly (Roy), portraying his actions and movements as such ---->

"railroad yards adjoining the depository building. He then noticed a Dallas City Police officer wearing a motorcycle helmet and boots running toward the entrance of the depository building, and he accompanied the officer into the front of the building. They saw no one there and he accompanied the officer immediately up the stairs to the second floor of the building, where the officer" --

Yet in the following film courtesy of Jimmy Darnell...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhKsIVCd00

How could Mr. Truly account for not seeing all of those people as he and the officer made their way up those steps?

There's a reason for that.

As with this Challenge here, only one entity offers any specifics, Prayer Man. Let's look at that tally once again:

The wrongfully accused (3) (where were you? "out front"; with who? "Bill 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.

"They saw no one there" (better than admitting just who they really saw given they had a script to revise). Why?

[Albert Doyle]

The elephant in the room with ROKC is the simple fact it doesn't accept or realize the significance of Armstrong and his evidence.



Until they do they will continue to try to force evidence whose interpretation is fatally flawed because they don't realize the basic affect the two Oswald's has on what they think they are perceiving.

[Alan Ford]

As if Chief Jesse Curry's same day remarks placing the wrongfully accused at the front door, or Mr. Truly's bizarre nothing to see here comment, quote "saw no one there", isn't enough, Mr. Murphy also shared with us US Postal Inspector Holmes' (Harry) Warren Commission exchange, where he also places the wrongfully accused's same day encounter with police at the front door as well...

Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.

Here we have multiple people putting the wrongfully accused right where he says he was. There's a reason for that.

Let's take a look at the Challenge Board:

Still standing at only one entity offering any specifics, Prayer Man. Thus the tally reads...

The wrongfully accused (5) (where were you? "out front"; with who? "Bill 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.

"They saw no one there" (There's a reason for that too).

[LR Trotter]

I assume that the "wrongfully accused" mentioned is a reference to Lee Harvey Oswald. If so, can a link to a video and/or audio recording of him making an "out front with Bill Shelley" statement? I have yet to see and/or hear that statement by LHO. I did hear him say, on video w/audio, paraphrasing, that he was in the TSBD building at the time because he worked there. There is ample testimony indicating LHO was not among the TSBD doorway area occupants at the time of the JFK assassination, and the notepad scribbling I have seen is quite ambiguous.

[Albert Doyle]

Holmes says in his Commission testimony that he wasn't anywhere near the Depository and watched from his office in the Terminal Annex Building. Alan is being dishonest because he knows that the front door encounter he cites was supposed to be well after the Prayer Man time. So it has nothing to do with anything except to serve as a gross cutting of corners in the evidence and false suggestion that Oswald was at the door the whole time up to this encounter.




http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm

[Alan Ford]

I assume that the "wrongfully accused" mentioned is a reference to Lee Harvey Oswald. If so, can a link to a video and/or audio recording of him making an "out front with Bill Shelley" statement? I have yet to see and/or hear that statement by LHO. I did hear him say, on video w/audio, paraphrasing, that he was in the TSBD building at the time because he worked there. There is ample testimony indicating LHO was not among the TSBD doorway area occupants at the time of the JFK assassination, and the notepad scribbling I have seen is quite ambiguous.

There's a reason those in the know made a decision to avoid allowing any audio, and/or video coverage of the wrongfully accused's series of interrogations over his three days in custody.

Is it much easier to frame someone with trumped up hearsay "evidence" than allowing them a fair opportunity to have access to a recorded audio and video hearing, where the general public could hear him calmly share an airtight alibi, which would then lead to an open public outcry of follow the evidence, not the script. Better to shoot him before heading down that slippery-slope eh...

The dynamics in this case are textbook for how not to handle an open and fair inquiry.

Now, this Challenge is producing everything and anything but any specifics about prayer woman or prayer person. There is a reason for that.

Let's take a look at the Challenge Board:

Still standing at only one entity offering any specifics, Prayer Man. Thus the tally reads...

The wrongfully accused (5) (where were you? "out front"; with who? "Bill 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.

"They saw no one there" (There's a reason for that).

[LR Trotter]

The point is, where do you go next with this fuzzy photograph? We already have much better evidence of Oswald's innocence that you can't get the media/government to pay any attention to (and almost all of us agree on). PM is an interesting thing to go hmmm about, but beyond that I don't see where it leads.

Quite likely Mr Riddle, you "don't see where it leads" because it leads nowhere, and nowhere has nothing to see.

Some time ago, I formed an opinion that the most likely person represented in the image known as PrayerMan to some, PrayerWoman to others, and PrayerPerson even to others, including myself, is Ms Sarah Stanton. The key word is opinion. But, as stated, I have seen a photograph/still, as well as a separate video/film showing a female that to me resembles the image of PrayerPerson. And, since testimony exists that places Ms Sarah Stanton in or near the area at the time, I have to consider her a possibility. However, I have tried to eliminate her as a candidate, but so far have been unable to do so. Mainly though, I believe that the PrayerPerson image only represents someone attempting to view the JFK motorcade as it went through Dealy Plaza on 11/22/'63. That said, I just wanted to post an expression of agreement to your quoted post, but include a reminder of my opinion regarding the issue.