The Loss of Accountability

“Contrary to widespread belief, not all JFK researchers endorse faked 9/11 attacks, chemical trails, flying saucers, counterfeit Southern snow, a government-run Ebola outbreak, Area 51, a non-existent Shakespeare, crop circles, bogus moon landings, or Elvis look-sees.”

That was a post I recently made on Facebook. It meant that membership in the first group did not necessarily constitute endorsement of or affiliation with all – or even any one – of the others. In other words, and like a lot of my serious-minded colleagues from the first group, I don’t care to be lumped in with looneys.

Within minutes it led to a firestorm of replies:

–“The WTC attacks were contrived by our government as a reason to go to war.”

As a source for this claim, one emailer cited comments made by Tim Commerfold, a self-described conspiracy theorist and member of the band Rage Against the Machine. I never heard of him. When I checked him out, I determined Tim could go naked yet still look like he was adorned in colorful attire. Who can dispute the ramblings of a guitar player from a defunct rap metal band on record as saying ISIS isn’t a real terrorist group and the beheading videos are merely performances staged by our own government “so we can go drop bombs.”

This country certainly doesn’t need to kill 3,000 of its own citizens to justify going to war. If it wants to go to war…it just goes.

–“The moon landing was faked.”

All six of them? Who left behind the equipment and other human artifacts still seen on the lunar surface in photos by NASA flybys and those snapped by

Moon

Japanese, Chinese and Indian space probes? Not to mention the Russians, who would absolutely love to uncover such shenanigans. And what about those man-made laser reflectors on the lunar surface, the ones still being used today by world-wide scientific and academic communities? Whoever could have put them there?

–“Aliens DO exist. Right now they are in secret bases on the far side of the moon, plotting the overthrow of our world leaders.”

I am at a loss for words on this one.

–“JFK was killed because he demanded the release of classified documents from NASA regarding secret alien visitations to our planet.”

Now we’re getting somewhere. Presumably, those visits were made by the same sneaky Joes comfortably living on the side of the moon that appears to be in perpetual darkness from our viewpoint, a similar level of illumination for those who support such an idea.

Have we always been this wild-eyed and stupid in our views?  Or has Facebook, Twitter and other technologies that expound on social silliness made it more visible?

Take, for example, “Prayer Man,” unquestionably one of the most popular and highly pixelated figures in modern-day photographic analysis. “Prayer Man” is a fuzzy, indistinct figure who stands atop the steps leading to the front entrance of the infamous Texas School Book Depository as JFK’s limo passes. He is cast in permanent shadow, shrouded in a spectrum of blacks and grays. Distant pictures of him amidst the crowd have been enlarged to the point of so much blurriness, even his gender is now in dispute. (He may be wearing a dress, some suggest, an area I will leave to the reader’s imagination.) Nevertheless, you can guess who many claim this mystery…uh…person really is.

In further support, countless overlays have been placed onto “Prayer Man,” the overlays, of course, all being of Lee Oswald in much the same pose. And of course there appears to be a match, at least in the eyes of those who want that kind of counterpart.  (I personally have put a transparency of Justin Bieber on top of “Prayer Man” and, had it not been for the fact the kid wasn’t even born back then, he appeared to be a reasonable candidate.)

After many years of discussion, research, and the aforementioned scrutiny in pursuit of “Prayer Man’s” true identity and sex, what is the claim of most who have studied it? One adherent offered the consensus:

“Prayer Man is most likely Oswald,” he wrote.

With all due respect to the initiative, efforts and enthusiasm shown over the decades, “most likelys” won’t cut it. It would be like me saying after 35 years of research and 300 pages of book text, Victoria Elizabeth Adams “most likely” came down the back stairs of the Depository when she said she did.

What possible value would that hold?

If the WTC attacks were government sponsored, if the moon landings were faked, if aliens do in fact live on our satellite and JFK was murdered because of that, if “Doorway Man,” Prayer Man,” Badge Man” or the “Boogey Man” really do exist within the guise being fostered…then present the hard stuff. Give me the substantiation beyond mere thoughts, guesses, speculations or opinions of others. Give me more than just misinterpretations or biased words taken out of context, more than just photo-shopped pictures or an amateur’s dissection of course gritty images worse than those taken initially by a handicapped Hubble.

Just show me the proof.

Advertisements

20 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

20 responses to “The Loss of Accountability

  1. Martin Flore

    Barry
    What you think of those pictures?
    Kind regards
    Martin

    • If you mean the picture in the blog above, that’s meant to be a spoof. If you are referring to photos and videos taken by the Apollo astronauts, I have no doubt they are legitimate. So too are the more recent images by NASA and foreign space probes showing the debris left behind by not one but a half-dozen lunar-landing missions which, if you think about it, would be such colossal overkill if they were all faked. With all the modern technology now available and the microscopic scrutiny by world-wide media and the academic and scientific communities, it would be virtually impossible to collectively lump these events into the category of a hoax.

  2. james truillo

    Hi Barry.. Jim Truillo here.  How are you, my friend.  I e-mailed you a little over a month ago to check in to see how you were doing and to tell you that I picked up a copy of Anthony Summers’Conspiracy. What is your opinion on the author and the book?  I was reading that an update on this book was released within the last couple of years.  Is that worth picking up also, or is it basically the same?  I apologize for not corresponding with you in quite a while.  I hope all is well, my friend.  You have been a tremendous inspiration to me in my Kennedy assassination research.  Is your e-mail address the same?  Have a great evening, Barry.Sincerely,Jim Truillo

    • Hi Jim,
      Thanks for writing. I’ve read “Conspiracy” several times and some of what he wrote about within those pages compelled me to make several trips to the National Archives for additional research. I suppose you might say he was inspiring as well! I liked his writing style. It was easy to read, informative, and I felt his handling of the subject matter was fair and objective. I am not familiar with any recent updates to his book. I do know “Conspiracy” came out with a different publisher under the title “Not In Your Lifetime” with a somewhat later copyright date of 1998. I don’t think much, if anything, was changed in its content. Perhaps this is the “update” you are referring to.

  3. Yes Barry YES! Just because some of us believe our government didn’t tell us the truth about the JFK Assassination doesn’t mean we all wear tin-foil hats while sending our drones out to see who is spying on us. We must determine fact from fiction; theory from evidence and most of all, we mustn’t fall into the pit of cognitive dissonance in order to make our beliefs true. Truth is truth. It has no agenda. It has no book deal, promises of movie options or labels of faux celebrity. It is just truth…and that is enough for me. My latest blog post fits in nicely with yours: http://gaylenixjackson.com/uncategorized/is-there-a-real-jfk-community/

  4. By lumping 9/11 with “fake moon landing,” and “Elvis is alive,” believers you insult and demean those who are serious about investigating 9/11 and have come to the conclusion through science and the analysis of eye-witnesses that a conspiracy is at the heart of this tragic event.

    You further compromise your rationality by stating, rather simplistically, that if the country wants to go to war, “it just goes.” Wrong. Could’t be more wrong. Consider: why would PNAC seek to explain that a “new Pearl Harbor,” would be necessary in order to mobilize public and political support for war and the advancement of the American hegemony.

    Please re-consider and amend your comments to reflect reality.

    Thank you.

    • Begun in 1997, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an ultra conservative think tank, one of hundreds routinely engaging their collective thought processes at any given moment within the DC political spectrum. As such brain trusts do, this one conjured up possible ways to further its jingoistic goal of promoting “… American global leadership,” which members felt to be “…good both for America and for the world.”

      Here are the words most often cited by conspiracy theorists:

      “America’s military must rule out even the possibility of a serious global or regional challenger anywhere in the world. The regime of Saddam Hussein must be toppled immediately, by U.S. force if necessary. And the entire Middle East must be reordered according to an American plan. PNAC’s most important study notes that selling this plan to the American people will likely take a long time, ‘absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.'”

      Like the in-depth analysis of every word and turn of a controversial phrase these days, “…like a new Pearl Harbor” is fodder for individual interpretation, subjective reasoning, and ultimate use by those who pose questions of which they already know the answers.

      While it may be logical to say the Bush Administration used the 2001 WTC attacks as a timely opportunity, it seems a gigantic leap when one asserts the same administration went so far as to create on its own the triad of horrific events that garnered such an opportunity.

      So I’ll just let it for readers to decide whether the PNAC’s words above were a pre-wargame warm-up for a diabolical plan to kill thousands of innocent people in order to justify going to war, or whether it was simply a kind of simile brought forth during an afternoon of tossing around cigars and discussion within the Capital Beltway.

  5. Buster

    Barry: You are making a serious mistake in ignoring the direct analog between the complex government plot behind the Kennedy Assassination and 9-11. While I don’t believe a controlled demolition occurred in the two Towers I can assure you with absolute certainty 9-11 was a deliberate event set-up by the same forces that killed Kennedy. What you are doing here is equal to someone coming in and questioning the Girl On The Steps claim.

    The Prayer Man issue is similar to the bogus claim that Oswald was seen in Altgens-6. Both claims are uncredible. The man seen in Altgens was Billy Lovelady and the person being called “Prayer Man” is an unidentified woman. This I can guarantee with 100% certainty despite the claims being made on an uncredible Australian website.

    • Please cite the evidence you have that will show “with absolute certainty 9-11 was a deliberate event set-up by the same forces that killed Kennedy.” I concur that it was Billy Lovelady, not Oswald. As to the so-called Prayer Man, the quality of photos simply is not clear enough to determine identity let alone gender. But again what evidence do you have that you feel can “guarantee this with 100% certainty”?

  6. “Take, for example, “Prayer Man,” unquestionably one of the most popular and highly pixelated figures in modern-day photographic analysis. “Prayer Man” is a fuzzy, indistinct figure who stands atop the steps leading to the front entrance of the infamous Texas School Book Depository as JFK’s limo passes.”

    From Mick Purdy, a TV cameraman with 20+ years experience:

    Just to be clear the Darnell frame should not be referred to as “blurry” , “fuzzy” , “hazy”, “out of Focus”, “grainy” , “soft” , or any other adjective which depicts it to be blurred.

    Remembering this is one frame taken from a set of moving images. Most likely filmed at 1/50th of a second or 180 degrees shutter angle for film. This will create what is known as motion blur.

    This helps to achieve the illusion of movement when the still frames collectively are played back on a screening device at the same frame rate as it was aquired at. When one frame is taken and viewed in isolation that frame will display blur on any moving object or person within that frame.

    The people a top of the steps do not appear to my eye to be moving, at least not rapidly enough to create blur.

    I believe that the original or first generation copy of the Darnell frame will show us categorically who PM is.

    __________

    Just helping you to stick to the facts, Barry.

    • You say you want to help me “stick to the facts.” A fact is a true piece of information. You cite Mick Purdy as being factual. What bothers me is when he uses words like, “do not appear to my eye” and “I believe.” What you are doing here is a common courtroom technique where a witness is hand-picked because he can lend support to a chosen viewpoint. Such a maneuver is not always objective. In your example, one might easily cite another cameraman, say a person with 25 or 30 years in the business, and claim because of his additional experience, his opposing views prove more valuable. In either case, it proves little.

      Let’s take a look at some of the “facts” you are on record as listing for Prayer Man being Lee Oswald:

      1. “There is a general consensus that the clothing [being worn by Prayer Man] is that of a worker, rather than a clerk or a manager.”

      General consensus from whom? Members of the Prayer-Man-Is-Oswald club? An alternative, for instance, might be that it was “casual Friday.”

      2. “…by a process of elimination, [Prayer Man] is either a total stranger from the streets OR Lee Harvey Oswald. No ifs no buts – it’s one or the other.”

      In support of this person NOT being a stranger, thereby leaving the only other option you seem immovable to accept, you say none of the employees saw a “stranger” that day, lending credence, at least in your opinion, to only a Depository worker being Prayer Man. This is a misrepresentation of the evidence and it cheapens the credibility of those who use it. Factually, the FBI conducted cursory (and I do mean cursory) interviews with those who were at work at the Depository on the morning of the assassination. You can see for yourself the perfunctory nature of these interviews by reading them in Volume 22 of the Commission’s hearings. No one said they saw a stranger in the building. Based on the way the FBI performed the questioning and the fact many of these employees worked behind closed doors, that isn’t a surprise. But here’s the point: each of those witnesses were being asked if they saw a stranger IN the Depository that morning, not outside the Depository. “No ifs no buts,” it is unethical to use these statements as a basis for there not being someone unfamiliar standing OUTSIDE the building, in a public gathering place, during a presidential parade, even if that person may have made his way or been invited to stand on the steps of the Depository.

      3. “Mathematical studies using known and accurate measurements from building plans show PM to be 5′ 9″ – Oswald’s height.”

      Again, mathematical studies by whom? And so what if he were the same height. Coincidences are replete when one studies this mess. And is this “fact” to the exclusion of all other 5’9″ individuals in Dallas at that time, or even others from the Depository?

      4. “There are multiple and independent pieces of evidence placing Oswald on the first floor and steps at all relevant times.”

      I agree with there being some corroborative evidence placing Oswald on the first floor before the assassination. After all, his duties involved him being on the first floor, it was lunchtime, and he often ate his lunch in the Domino Room there. But where is the evidence putting him on the steps, as you say? I don’t recall any witness making such a specific statement as that. If you are referring to Carolyn Arnold, she claimed to have seen Oswald “standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse…a few minutes before 12:15 PM.” This is hardly “on the steps” or at the “relevant time.” Nor do I feel Oswald’s hand-notated-by-another comment that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front” to be of much value. He could have seen Shelley from “the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse,” for that matter. And speaking of not seeing strangers, not a single person at the Depository’s entrance way or on its steps testified to seeing Oswald at any time standing among them. Why not?

      To clarify something else, the point to my Justin Bieber comment (assuming there is a point to Justin Bieber) was to show that overlays are extremely subjective and offer little substance, especially when those overlays are of the very person you are accusing Prayer Man of being. Add to that the fact current photographs showing Prayer Man are not the best quality, as even supporters of this theory readily admit.

      Here is what I found of value in Mick Purdy’s words:

      “I believe that the original or first generation copy of the Darnell film will show us categorically who PM is.”

      Maybe it will; maybe it won’t. But at the moment, you are making claims that are severely weakened by the lack of that copy. You defend its absence with statements that you and others “…have gone to great lengths to get the original Darnell film” only to “have been met with nothing but stonewalling by those in control of it.” Or, “And we are forced to use them [multi-generation copies] because the keepers of the film won’t give it up.”

      These are cop-outs. Suppression of documents and obstacles placed along the paths toward finding truths in this subject are certainly not breaking news to legitimate researchers. The difference is, legitimate researchers don’t use that as an excuse, or necessarily as proof of ulterior motives. They exhaust every known remedy to do something about it.

      Gayle Nix Jackson, in a strikingly similar vein, can’t get the original of her grandfather’s film. She is suing the government for it. Have you filed suit for the Darnell film? Have you even filed a FOIA request seeking its release? If so, let’s see the response. If not, WHY not?

      Of those who were on the steps or nearby at the “relevant” time, have you interviewed any still alive, or shown them pictures to see if they may be able to identify this mysterious person? Buell Wesley Frazier is still with us. He was Oswald’s friend and, if your identification of him in the Darnell picture is accurate, he is arm’s length away from Prayer Man. Have you talked with Frazier? He is on recent record as saying he saw Oswald come out the rear of the Depository after the shooting and walk down Houston Street toward Elm. If true, this damning detail contradicts the government’s version of Oswald’s escape. If Frazier is willing to say that in public this late in the game, wouldn’t you think he’d be a good one to question on Prayer Man?

      I hope that Prayer Man turns out to be Lee Oswald. I really do. It would answer a lot of questions that have plagued many over the decades and provide a degree of closure to this festering issue. My concern is and always has been the overuse of opinion, conjecture, the misuse of the written record, weak arguments, and obvious jumps to conclusions. You’ll simply have to do better than that. Many years ago I was taught by the best of them, Harold Weisberg. He always cautioned me that “theory” was the equivalent of a four-letter word. At this point, Prayer Man is theory. Lacking more than what has been shown so far, it is simply another of Harold’s perceived profanities. It hardly represents the exoneration of Lee Oswald.

      Putting the cart before the horse only makes what follows it look silly.

  7. Prayer man is more than a blurred image.
    No one claimed to be in that spot out of all employees of both warehouses.
    Not one investigation conducted ever named this individual.
    Sean Murphy employed a simple process of elimination using all statements and affidavits to place each and every employee. Don’t try and wiggle here Barry, the FBI asked every employee if they had seen any strangers, none had. And the frame is clear enough to see white skin, a work shirt, dark receding hairline and a dead ringer for Oswald when comparison is made side by side with know images of Oswald. Finally when all names have been gone through, and located, we are left with one name.
    Lee Harvey Oswald.
    We have challenged folks on the fence to name this person, and to
    provide proof they were in this location during Wiegman and Darnell.

    Oswald’s own words place him out front with Bill Shelley.

    Barry do you wish to engage in a debate about this? Do you want to find out first hand the difference between an image of a real person like Prayer Man and those other non-existent ones you clumped Prayer Man in with?

    Step up and be my guest and join ROKC, I’ll be waiting for you there my friend.

    Ed Ledoux
    2/14/16

    • Saying Prayer Man is more than a blurred image is arguing semantics. The image is clearly (pardon the pun) too indistinct to identify, regardless of the adjectives used to describe it. And that is the real point here. If the quality was better, there would be no hesitation as to the name of this individual, right? Until then, only speculation dominates.

      As noted elsewhere, using the “no strangers” defense is misrepresenting the evidence since it is obvious the employees were being asked whether they had observed a stranger IN the building, where it was felt the shots originated. Those employees who responded said as much. Check Commission Exhibit 1381 for their comments and the facts. Continuing to use this line of reasoning to imply no strangers were present on the OUTSIDE steps is unfair, misleading, and dishonest. Calling those steps a “porch” or a “vestibule” or a “partially enclosed roofed extension,” as some have done in an attempt to justify that area as being part of the building’s insides, is grasping at straws and looks ridiculous.

      “Hey, Mom, I’ll be inside on the portico.”

      Equally weak is making the leap that Prayer Man is no one else but Oswald simply because other employees can be accounted for as being somewhere else. Consider that it may have been a customer performing routine business with a publishing company located on a floor above, a customer who just happened to be leaving the building then. Or, maybe it was a guy from the catering service that usually came by to sell lunch to workers. Definitively saying it can only be Oswald is simply wrong.

      It is also interesting to note that in addition to the FBI asking employees if they had seen a stranger that day, each also was queried as to whether he or she had seen Oswald at the time the president was shot. All who responded said no, they had not. This included employees who stood near Prayer Man, the same ones recycled to say there were no strangers at the front entrance when it was morphed to mean “inside.”

      If they were observant enough not to notice a stranger there, how come they didn’t see a familiar face like Oswald’s either? To my knowledge, this dilemma hasn’t been addressed by the Oswald-is-Prayer-Man camp.

      It is not up to those skeptical of your claims to name who Prayer Man is; it is your obligation and responsibility to prove to a certainty who you claim Prayer Man to be.

      Oswald’s words that he was “out front” with Bill Shelley have taken on more relevance than they should since it is not clear exactly what he meant by that, or even if he said it at all. If the Prayer Man group chooses to believe Oswald’s words in this instance, why does that same group disbelieve Oswald when he said he was in the second-floor lunchroom drinking a coke when the policeman and Roy Truly confronted him?

      And finally, I do support 100 percent the reopening of the Kennedy case. But that is not going to happen if speculation and flawed research outweigh careful and unbiased work.

  8. Buster

    Mr Ernest: Unfortunately the members of the ROKC website who post here are not credible. Duncan MacRae posted an enlargement of the Darnell film frame where the features of a woman became clear. Not only was there visible long woman’s hair but there was also a woman’s purse or some other such object clasped in both hands. Visible in MacRae’s blow-up were several fasteners or buttons on the lower half of Prayer Man’s garment. Close examination of those buttons clearly shows that there were 5 of them on the bottom half of Prayer Man’s garment, as well as more buttons on the upper half by the collar, numbering at least 9 total. Examination of all known shirts owned by Oswald shows he owned no shirt possessing 9 buttons. ROKC knew it was in trouble with this so it starting cooking excuses that the buttons were merely “artifacts” caused by limitations in the film grain causing quirks when enlarged. The problem with this is the Darnell image used by MacRae came from Sean Murphy himself and any look at it will show the buttons are clearly visible in Murphy’s copy. MacRae even drew arrows to them. Close examination of the Darnell original will prove the buttons are part of the original image and are not artifacts. This in turn verifies Prayer Man is not Oswald.

    The ROKC website is not honest because they are aware an argument exists that disproves Prayer Man being Oswald at this resolution level. On MacRae’s website a poster named Tony Fratini posted an image of the Allen photo of the Depository portal taken at nearly an identical angle to Darnell. That Allen photo showed a man standing just inside the Depository behind the plate glass partition close to the Prayer Man position. That man had to be standing at the same level as the portal landing. Fratini juxtaposed the Darnell Prayer Man image next to this man proving that the body proportions necessitate that Prayer Man is also standing on the landing, since they were of identical height. This is important because once we determine Prayer Man was standing on the landing we can then draw a direct height comparison between Frazier and Prayer Man. We know Frazier is 6 feet tall. Any direct comparison between Prayer Man and Frazier in Darnell will show Prayer Man is about 6-7 inches shorter than Frazier. This proves that Prayer Man is 5 foot 5 or 6. Since Oswald was 5 foot 9 this proves beyond a doubt that Prayer Man is not Oswald. ROKC knows this but they are ignoring it because they have dedicated themselves to Murphy’s theory.

    Greg Parker was aware of the height problem. He solved this by claiming Prayer Man was standing one step down from the landing. When it was pointed out to him that that position places Prayer Man in a fixed spot due to geometric triangulation he refused to answer. You see the problem with this is Greg was also claiming Prayer Man had his arms crossed and was leaning against the wall. However the one step down claim mathematically places Prayer Man at a point that is at least a foot from the wall, meaning that anatomically Prayer Man can’t be leaning against the wall. Parker is caught between his one step down and leaning claims by science. He has stuck his neck out because he hasn’t quite resolved his self-acknowledged problem with Prayer Man’s height. The way he deals with it is to ignore it.

    I assure you, as MacRae proved, Prayer Man is a woman standing with limp-wristed female posturing, open breast, and buttons facing Frazier. She’s holding a purse clenched in both hands. MacRae’s contrast enhancement even shows female facial bone structure and glasses for those with the skill to detect it. Right now ROKC is bluffing that it needs a better image but these things I’ve mentioned prove it at this resolution.

  9. Interesting discussion, Mr. Ernest. Unfortunately, I see you have deleted a few posts that clearly showed your incredible bias in the issue of Prayer Man. Perhaps you should actually read more on the issue before you past judgments on the subject.

    Otherwise, you should probably re-title this post “The Loss of Integrity”.

    • If by “incredible bias” you mean deleting posts containing disrespectful personal comments, name calling, and slurs against religious affiliation, not to mention the dishonest use of established evidence to meet one’s own ends, then yes, I am guilty. There are an abundance of venues that permit — even endorse — such behavior and misrepresentation; mine will not be one of them.

      What is “incredibly ironic” here is that you blame me for having the very character flaw that is so obvious in those you support. It never ceases to amuse and amaze me in equal measure the mental gymnastics people take with the evidence in this subject in order to mold it into a scenario they wish to stubbornly nurture. This is why honest research is going unnoticed and why petitions for reopening the investigation will never be taken seriously. Perhaps a more familiar knowledge of the evidence in this case might help you understand the dismay many feel in this regard.

      You are also wrong if you think I am against Prayer Man simply for Prayer Man’s sake. I am on record as saying I hope research reveals Prayer Man to be Lee Oswald. But I don’t endorse jumping to that conclusion in advance of more solid and reliable evidence than what is currently being shown. It is ironic as well when one sees members of the Prayer-Man-Is-Oswald community doing exactly the same thing as what they readily – and rightfully, I might add — accuse the Warren Commission of having done.

      Loss of integrity, you say? You’ve got to love the irony once again! One of the reasons my book didn’t come out as soon as it could have was because I refused to bow down to the wishes of several interested publishers who wanted me to speculate in a final chapter about, in their words, “who you think killed JFK, how you think they did it, and why.” What I “thought” about the assassination and how it may have been done didn’t matter. What I could prove, did. So when I refused to “lose my integrity” (those were my words back then), one esteemed publisher responded, “We’re not interested in the facts, per se. Just the entertainment value.”

      Now, who did you say you are with? Martian Publishing?

  10. Thank you for the rather lengthy tirade in response to my previous post.

    Once again, Mr. Ernest, you have the advantage of me.

    Having deleted the posts, you may claim they contained “disrespectful personal comments, name calling, and slurs against religious affiliation, not to mention the dishonest use of established evidence to meet one’s own ends” but then we would have to simply rely on your honesty on the issue. Personally, I don’t recall reading anything of the nature in those postings. But it is your site and you are allowed to run it for whatever entertainment value you wish.

    Any irony I sense is that you seem to draw such a wealth of information about what I do or do not support from my short original response. Perhaps you have some paranormal abilities in this regard but you can hardly know my mind at all, regardless of your seeming self-assurance in the matter. But I am happy I have been able to amaze and amuse you in such a short post.

    I am from Indiana, though where I am from is not germane to the issue. Well, unless you intend personal attacks.

    And I’m glad to understand you are in support of the idea of determining the identity of the person on the steps. Perhaps you could join in the effort trying to locate the original film? It might show a little more solidarity than simply attacking those involved in the search.

    • I appreciate your civil response. Calling it a “tirade” is subjective. I prefer “clarification.” You can count on my honesty. There are still a few of us left, but I suppose that is subjective as well. If I indeed had paranormal abilities, I would be a perfect fit for Martian Publishing, wouldn’t I? The “amaze and amuse” reference was not directed at you. I don’t know you, nor am I familiar with your work. Instead, it was a reference to how some who call themselves researchers tend to semantically manipulate and twist the evidence for their own purposes. This is not true research, despite what they think. I don’t get personal in my comments unless it becomes a factor toward one’s credibility. Even then I’m usually subtle about it. And as I’ve said before, I support 100 percent any efforts toward gaining truths in this subject. There is a difference, however, between the careful pursuit of evidence that may or may not lead to a conclusion, versus uncompromisingly adopting a conclusion while still following the evidence. The results are often tainted and, to use your term, biased when the latter occurs.

  11. Frank Smith

    Barry,
    Your observations on the lack of civility in the JFK community may be closely related to two factors: the anonymity granted by the computer and the false identities used to post contrary material.
    We have experienced the revelation of Nixon’s people sending supporting telegrams to the White House but how aware are we of newspapers who blog their own stories, or fake Face Book friends of political candidates or gov’t. moles attacking non-establishment ideas in cyberspace.
    It would seem that the latter is more common than realized. By name calling, the favorite of the intellectually challenged, those poorly informed will be warned away from anti-establishment thoughts or beliefs.
    Our (mainstream) news media is nothing but gov’t. trolls these days. Investigative reporters, such as Gary Webb are dead and gone. We have only repeater stations pretending to be newspapers these days.
    Enjoyed the book and reading on this website. Remember, “Illegitimi non carborendum Est”, don’t let the bastards burn you up.

    Frank

  12. Alan

    Mr. Ernest,

    Though I share your sentiments in hoping that Prayer Man is indeed the wrongfully accused, Lee Harvey Oswald, I wish the reluctance of many within the JFK assassination community to fully acknowledge the significance of Prayer Man would morph into a genuine change of heart, galvanizing into a genuine examination of this very real figure.

    To those parties who are actually making every effort to turn over every stone to secure access to the Jimmy Darnell film, we should praise their them for their due diligence rather than discourage their good faith efforts. There is a reason that the Prayer Man figure hasn’t been accounted for. There’s also a reason why the wrongfully accused’s airtight alibi was promptly hidden away from public view/consumption.

    I’ve read extensively that many researchers are lukewarm to the Prayer Man issue due to the blurred photo, void of distinct features, etc. To counter some of these concerns, I’ve been actively preparing a presentation to air next month. It is my hope that what I may contribute to the prevailing commentary around this mystery figure will ease the concerns about non-distinct features. I do not wish to get into broad detail here sir about my presentation, but please feel free to venture over via the accompanying link for a brief tidbit of what’s to come… http://www.jfkact.org/post/a-prayer-man-presentation-8135404

    Though I didn’t present them within that brief tidbit, I have managed to secure even better images reserved for next month. Moving forward, I’m hopeful the research community can rally to set the record straight for all time. Three innocent men lost their lives that tragic weekend, Mr. Ernest (an unarmed representative of the people, his alleged sniper, and an officer at 10th & Patton). It’s way past time to set the record straight on those events, and assure all three victims a sense of honest justice. Thanks for doing your part with your exemplary research on Victoria Adams. Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s