Sean Murphy- wrong again!!!

[Richard Gilbride]

OK, sports fans, I have a new diagram "Location in Weigman" posted in the PHOTOS section of my website at https://www.jfkinsidejob.com/pm which proves that PrayerMan was at the front of the TSBD landing.

And I have sent a synopsis of the height argument, with the relevant photos & diagrams, to Megan Bryant, the Director of Collections at the Sixth Floor Museum. Along with a strong recommendation that a digital scan of the Darnell film not be made- not without first presenting a substantive argument that overcomes the Doyle height argument.

When Sean Murphy formulated his hypothesis that PrayerMan was Oswald, he neglected to make a height analysis. And when eliminating other building employees and strangers as possible candidates, he failed to consider that the witnesses could have been mistaken, or forgotten- about where they stood, about whether any strangers were there, about whether any workers from neighboring buildings may have been on the TSBD landing.

And there are two incontrovertible facts in Weigman's film which completely devastate Murphy's hypothesis.

1) The film shows an apparent drinking motion, from a coffee or a Coke. This motion requires about a foot and a half of clearance from the alcove's west wall.

2) The vertical border-strip of the entranceway's glass partition is seen just behind PrayerMan's east shoulder (the viewer's right). Anyone's shoulders are about one foot in width. Weigman filmed at approximately 30 degrees to the TSBD landing (Darnell filmed at almost exactly 20 degrees). And so the natural body proportion sets a constraint as to where PrayerMan can possibly be standing- he absolutely has to be within the shaded area on the Location in Weigman diagram. Even with a much broader angle estimated for Weigman, PrayerMan still has to be situated well forward on the landing.

Situated at the front- and not in the corner- means we get a near one-to-one correspondence between the heights of PrayerMan and Wesley Frazier in the Darnell film. They are nearly equidistant from the camera, and only a 1% or so correction needs to be made for perspective.

Darnell's Camera Car 3 was about "70 feet from the closest point of the building" (Pictures of the Pain, p. 424) and so about 75 feet from Frazier, and 76.5 feet from PrayerMan. I measure their respective heights on my Darnell blowup as 5.2 and 4.4 cm. Since Frazier was 72.25 inches tall, PrayerMan calculates to (72.25)(76.5/75)(4.4/5.2) = 5' 2 1/2", to a reasonable approximation. Nowhere near the height of Oswald, and typical of the height of a woman

There is zero chance that PrayerMan is Oswald. Don't you think Sean Murphy realizes this?

Don't you understand, that if he truly believed he was correct about PrayerMan, Sean would be passionately involved in the effort at getting a Darnell film-scan achieved?

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

My next 2 posts, immediately following, are scathing critiques of this fantasist, which are long overdue. With the PrayerMan boondoggle he pulls off a trifecta of self-will run riot.

Please allow me to post them and finish introducing this topic, before responding.

[Richard Gilbride]

The PrayerMan debacle fooled several dozen researchers, a false scent that filled their hours with nonsensical judgments. In the end it was a waste of their time, and a waste of time for those obliged to debunk this mullarkey.

And this is not the only major-league boneheaded hypothesis put forth by the fantasist Sean Murphy. And the circumstance that he's gained so many devoted followers reflects poorly on the JFK research community- it's full of gullible pseudoscholars, prone to a mob mentality, lacking in critical thinking skills.

And the cult surrounding his boneheaded detective-work has grown so megalomaniac, that it's now become politically incorrect to even dare criticize Sean Murphy's ideas. Such criticism will get you censored by the EdForum moderators, to whom political correctness is more pertinent than truth. Your posts will get deleted and posting privileges suspended. In my case, accentuating the obvious- that Sean Murphy has alcohol-abuse issues- earned me a suspension of 47 days and counting.

I remind the reader that this is a murder investigation. That hard-nosed detective work is called for. That if you are more concerned with potentially offending someone's feelings than with discerning the truth, you belong with the liberal snowflakes who lost the last election.

Sean wasted many man-years of researchers' lives with his erroneous hypotheses. He has successfully splintered the community, doing more damage than a CIA disinformation specialist could have ever hoped to accomplish. My guess is that he knows full well the mess that he's made. It would help if he owned up to it. All it takes is a simple apology and admission that he was wrong. We all get things wrong. But Sean continues to hide in the shadows, unable to face the holy hell he's wrought. Unable to let go of the adulation from his fellow megalomaniacs.

A major portion of his renowned PrayerMan thread- Oswald Leaving the TSBD?- was devoted to the proposition that Truly & Baker ascended via the west freight elevator rather than the corner stairwell. An imaginative proposition that falls apart completely upon inspection. This is fully critiqued in my 1st lunchroom essay- The Lunchroom Incident- A Short Proof and Long Explanation.

Briefly, in order for Murphy's fantasy to be true, 1) Baker has to concoct two lies in his afternoon's affidavit- that the elevator was "hung several floors up" and that he encountered a man on the "3rd or 4th floor" 2) During the 4 o'clock hour Fritz co-opts Baker into this risky double-lie, because he's had an uncharacteristic loss of confidence after just one interrogation session with Oswald and needs a suspect, any suspect 3) Dougherty took the stairs down from the 5th upon reacting to a shot (the elevator method was implied by his affidavits & testimony) and inexplicably missed noticing the assassins fleeing via the east elevator- and subsequently lied in his testimony by claiming to take the west elevator down, so as to cover for Truly 4) a US Attorney's letter discovered 47 years after the assassination has to be interpreted contrary to common sense- "after Miss Adams went downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come up" - via the elevator, according to Murphy, and not via the stairs- that Adams had just used, whose timing on the stairs relative to Oswald's was being discussed.

Murphy's proposition has had few, if any, adherents since this disassembly. And this proposition was a direct outgrowth of an even deeper fantasy- and I refer here to his hypothesis that the lunchroom incident was a hoax.

[Scott Kaiser]

OK, sports fans, I have a new diagram "Location in Weigman" posted in the PHOTOS section of my website at https://www.jfkinsidejob.com/pm which proves that PrayerMan was at the front of the TSBD landing.

Holy shit! And, others say to me if I don't have the photos it never happened, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. LMAO! Boy! Is my publisher and I going to have so much fun selling more than a million copies, and I don't have to do anything other than tell the truth.

[Richard Gilbride]

This lunchroom issue was discussed in great depth a year ago in the EdForum threads Great New Movie Spells Out the Case for Oswald as PrayerMan and One Last Thing Before XMas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunchroom Encounter and the critique remains the same. And Bart Kamp ignored this in his award-winning essay.

1) Every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a mundane explanation that supports the incident's reality.

2) WC 3076, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, shows that 6 months after his testimony Baker was still confused about the TSBD floor layout, giving a strong likelihood that he was confused about it in his 1st-day affidavit.

3) The 1964 filmed interview and 1986 filmed testimony contain no tangible indication that a monstrous lie about the lunchroom incident is being put forth, nor is there any indication that Baker was excessively anxious when being questioned by Bugliosi.

4) The will-call counter bump, a superfluous incident that serves no ostensible purpose in a contrived hoax narrative, is a telltale indicator that the dozen other points of correspondence in the Truly/Baker testimonies (at the elevator & in the lunchroom) actually happened.

5) The Kent Biffle story about Oswald being seen in a 1st-floor storage room has not one whit of corroboration, and almost certainly is garbled hearsay.

6) The Stroud document, coupled with a fact-based understanding of their timelines, places Adams & Styles on the stairs during the same timeframe that Truly & Baker are ascending the stairs from the elevator area. And the men had to have been in the lunchroom when the ladies passed.

And so we have an aggregate in the evidentiary record that supports the incident and not the hoax. Were there one issue only (such as interpretations of WC 3076) the hoaxers would have a debate. But there are several issues, and the fruitlesness of this school of thought is revealed by what is required to sustain it, and what it has produced:

The hoax requires a mini-conspiracy involving Truly, Baker, James Bookhout, Jeraldean Reid, James Leavelle, David Belin, and anyone else "in the know" in the DPD, FBI and Warren Commission. All of this to sustain a theory that has produced but one palpable result:

Baker's "4th floor man" vanished into thin air. This is the only tangible lead produced by this school of thought in 10-plus years. The same result as the theory that Space Aliens Abducted the Assassin. The other leads, fragile Murphyisms, are laughable- Tan Jacket Man and Ira Trantham's HSCA statement.

I invite the hoax adherents to look up Baker's children and grandchildren, show them the evidence (pro and con) and explain to them why Baker chose to participate in a hoax- a make-believe story- deeply pertinent to the murder of President Kennedy. And then sit down with a couple of Dallas cops and detectives to really drive your case home. Show the pro and con.

Hoaxers don't get it, that there was funny business going on with the elevators while Truly & Baker were on the ground floor and climbing the stairs. This is why Truly deflected attention onto Oswald in the lunchroom. And he never mentioned the elevators to the press. On top of that, power to the elevators was cut during the early minutes of the police search. And this was not mentioned in the press, nor even the Warren Report.

This hack theory- an attempted reconstruction of President Kennedy's diabolical murder- is perpetuated mainly by the bully drunkards at the ROKC forum- hooligan pseudoscholars to whom sophistry and wishful thinking outweigh any skills in math, science or Aristotelean logic. Managed by a 9th-grade dropout who spent way too many years in the bar-room, under the illusion that ethanol-laced beverages help the mind think more clearly. Ethanol. a gasoline additive, and the active ingredient in beer, wine and hard liquor.

Only an appearance by Sean Murphy himself, an admission that he's dead wrong, can rectify this hopelessly splintered situation, and I'm not holding my breath.
.

[LR Trotter]

​Certainly no argument from me! And, I do hope this thread is "allowed" to remain in place for all, at least those that are in search of true facts, to see.

[Scott Kaiser]

This lunchroom issue was discussed in great depth a year ago in the EdForum threads Great New Movie Spells Out the Case for Oswald as PrayerMan and One Last Thing Before XMas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunchroom Encounter and the critique remains the same. And Bart Kamp ignored this in his award-winning essay.

1) Every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a mundane explanation that supports the incident's reality.

So the fact that Mr. Truly and Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, and Baker had his gun drawn on Oswald is everything but dull.

2) WC 3076, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, shows that 6 months after his testimony Baker was still confused about the TSBD floor layout, giving a strong likelihood that he was confused about it in his 1st-day affidavit.

Just because Baker may have been confused about a layout doesn't necessary mean his entire testimony should be rejected, I sure hope there's no attorney's on this thread backing this, my recommendation to you would be, through out your oath and hand back your license.

3) The 1964 filmed interview and 1986 filmed testimony contain no tangible indication that a monstrous lie about the lunchroom incident is being put forth, nor is there any indication that Baker was excessively anxious when being questioned by Bugliosi.

You do realize it was just a film don'tcha? Like my interviews, which makes my job hard to separate truth from fiction, and the only way to do that is to find as much material that will corroborate as much information as possible to back any interview. BTW... I did that too, and as I find my corroborations with other individuals, they have no idea the questions I'm asking them is to see if their information is in relation to the material I'm seeking. I want to know if their stories they're giving me is true, everything must fall in line, fall in place before I can reject it. Like the information some researcher said about Frank Sturgis and the S.F. Chronicle, this is a perfect example, the information was at John Simkim's page, some researcher who calls himself "The Realist" injects this information, and it was or is still found at some site owned by Tom Flaco, now if no one knew any better, you'd swear they're telling the truth right? That's why it's important to fact check with FOIA documents too, although, documents can be wrong, the moral of my story is, the more people saying the same thing, and if there's documents backing up their information, then it's pretty hard to discredit it right?

4) The will-call counter bump, a superfluous incident that serves no ostensible purpose in a contrived hoax narrative, is a telltale indicator that the dozen other points of correspondence in the Truly/Baker testimonies (at the elevator & in the lunchroom) actually happened.

Huh? WTF?

5) The Kent Biffle story about Oswald being seen in a 1st-floor storage room has not one whit of corroboration, and almost certainly is garbled hearsay.

Again, huh? WTF?

6) The Stroud document, coupled with a fact-based understanding of their timelines, places Adams & Styles on the stairs during the same timeframe that Truly & Baker are ascending the stairs from the elevator area. And the men had to have been in the lunchroom when the ladies passed.

Nice accusations, great theory that offers no proof, not even a shred of evidence.

And so we have an aggregate in the evidentiary record that supports the incident and not the hoax. Were there one issue only (such as interpretations of WC 3076) the hoaxers would have a debate. But there are several issues, and the fruitlesness of this school of thought is revealed by what is required to sustain it, and what it has produced:

The hoax requires a mini-conspiracy involving Truly, Baker, James Bookhout, Jeraldean Reid, James Leavelle, David Belin, and anyone else "in the know" in the DPD, FBI and Warren Commission. All of this to sustain a theory that has produced but one palpable result:

Baker's "4th floor man" vanished into thin air. This is the only tangible lead produced by this school of thought in 10-plus years. The same result as the theory that Space Aliens Abducted the Assassin. The other leads, fragile Murphyisms, are laughable- Tan Jacket Man and Ira Trantham's HSCA statement.

I invite the hoax adherents to look up Baker's children and grandchildren, show them the evidence (pro and con) and explain to them why Baker chose to participate in a hoax- a make-believe story- deeply pertinent to the murder of President Kennedy. And then sit down with a couple of Dallas cops and detectives to really drive your case home. Show the pro and con.

Hoaxers don't get it, that there was funny business going on with the elevators while Truly & Baker were on the ground floor and climbing the stairs. This is why Truly deflected attention onto Oswald in the lunchroom. And he never mentioned the elevators to the press. On top of that, power to the elevators was cut during the early minutes of the police search. And this was not mentioned in the press, nor even the Warren Report.

This hack theory- an attempted reconstruction of President Kennedy's diabolical murder- is perpetuated mainly by the bully drunkards at the ROKC forum- hooligan pseudoscholars to whom sophistry and wishful thinking outweigh any skills in math, science or Aristotelean logic. Managed by a 9th-grade dropout who spent way too many years in the bar-room, under the illusion that ethanol-laced beverages help the mind think more clearly. Ethanol. a gasoline additive, and the active ingredient in beer, wine and hard liquor.

Only an appearance by Sean Murphy himself, an admission that he's dead wrong, can rectify this hopelessly splintered situation, and I'm not holding my breath.
.

And, my reply regarding everything else after six (6,) huh? WTF? No argument here!

[Scott Kaiser]

^Edited.

[Albert Doyle]

Thanks Richard. It is nice to see well-directed eloquence and refreshingly objective intelligence finally confront this ridiculous situation.

And I have sent a synopsis of the height argument, with the relevant photos & diagrams, to Megan Bryant, the Director of Collections at the Sixth Floor Museum. Along with a strong recommendation that a digital scan of the Darnell film not be made- not without first presenting a substantive argument that overcomes the Doyle height argument.

The evidence against Prayer Man is so strong that release of the original filmstock should be encouraged under any circumstances since the first photo analysis expert to get hold of it will confirm everything we've been saying. But, yes, guidance of that expert to the evidence we have found should help resolve the issue once and for all.

When Sean Murphy formulated his hypothesis that PrayerMan was Oswald, he neglected to make a height analysis. And when eliminating other building employees and strangers as possible candidates, he failed to consider that the witnesses could have been mistaken, or forgotten- about where they stood, about whether any strangers were there, about whether any workers from neighboring buildings may have been on the TSBD landing.

I'm of the mind that Prayer Man is simply a TSBD employee that moved around. ROKC and Murphy have brainwashed people into thinking their positions are permanent and unchanging. This is achieved by carefully arguing all information under the assumption Prayer Man is Oswald and omitting all that counters it. And, as it now appears, all those who counter it.

And there are two incontrovertible facts in Weigman's film which completely devastate Murphy's hypothesis.

1) The film shows an apparent drinking motion, from a coffee or a Coke. This motion requires about a foot and a half of clearance from the alcove's west wall.

Have to disagree. Duncan MacRae's enlargement of Davidson's enhancement clearly shows a sun-lit hand to be the glowing object in question. It is important to get that right because it is an important landmark for the positioning geometry.

2) The vertical border-strip of the entranceway's glass partition is seen just behind PrayerMan's east shoulder (the viewer's right). Anyone's shoulders are about one foot in width. Weigman filmed at approximately 30 degrees to the TSBD landing (Darnell filmed at almost exactly 20 degrees). And so the natural body proportion sets a constraint as to where PrayerMan can possibly be standing- he absolutely has to be within the shaded area on the Location in Weigman diagram. Even with a much broader angle estimated for Weigman, PrayerMan still has to be situated well forward on the landing.

I'd say a foot and a half for the average shoulder width.


If you go to the Bear Pit thread you'll see I caught Stancak deliberately avoiding applying his Prayer Man graphic cartoon image to his overlay image of the portal exactly because he knew it showed exactly what you say here.

Since Frazier was 72.25 inches tall, PrayerMan calculates to (72.25)(76.5/75)(4.4/5.2) = 5' 2 1/2", to a reasonable approximation. Nowhere near the height of Oswald, and typical of the height of a woman

This is the basic argument that even Stancak admitted before he quit. The rest now pretend that didn't happen or that it doesn't finally disprove the Prayer Man issue. (I would say more like 5 foot 5 or 6)

There is zero chance that PrayerMan is Oswald. Don't you think Sean Murphy realizes this?

Don't you understand, that if he truly believed he was correct about PrayerMan, Sean would be passionately involved in the effort at getting a Darnell film-scan achieved?

It is common sense that no man with such case-cracking evidence would just abandon it if it were real.




Since your earlier Education Forum posts Chris Davidson enhanced a steady frame from Wiegman and produced the clear face of a woman on Prayer Man. ROKC knew they were sunk by this so they lied and said it was an illusion. Davidson is sort of a wimp and prone to mob intimidation, so he posted his metadata, that the Murphy gang didn't think he could produce, and backed-off. That metadata proved that the woman's face seen in Wiegman was a real and existing part of the Wiegman frame from which it originated. The Murphy-ites have been trying to forget that ever since with the help of some very shitty and anti-intellectual censoring.

[LR Trotter]

I am convinced that a cup of some type of liquid is what is seen being held and likely drank from. JMO.

[Scott Kaiser]

Can any one honest researcher please tell me what and who are YOU looking at by viewing these photos? Would you use any one of these photos in court? I would like an honest debate please.

I sometimes wonder what is wrong with half of you folks? You create evidence that isn't there, and throw out evidence that's clear as day. SMH