Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Alan Ford]

Baker says in his testimony that he & Roy Truly were atop the roof for between 5 & 10 minutes. Yet Baker claims he saw Inspector Sawyer...

Mr. BAKER - The next thing that I noticed was Inspector Sawyer, he was on one of those floors there, he is a police inspector.
Mr. DULLES - City of Dallas Police?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. And he was on, I really didn't notice which floor he was on, but that is the first thing I saw as we descended how this freight elevator

Setting aside the timing issue momentarily..................

Inspector Sawyer will soon be broadcasting the following on Channel 2:

"Well, apparently, the shots might have come from this building. It's unknown whether he's still there or not. It's unknown whether he was there in the first place."

Let's take each element in turn.....................

"It's unknown whether he's still there or not": This does not sound like a description based on a man seen running out the back door of the Depository. Inspector Sawyer's description would seem to have come from a different source.

"It's unknown whether he was there in the first place": This does not sound like a description based on a man seen firing from one of the Depository windows (by e.g. Mr Howard Brennan). (I am assuming here that "in the first place" means at the the actual time shots were fired.) Inspector Sawyer's description would seem to have come from a different source.

One would very much like to suggest that the true source was none other than Officer Marrion Baker, whose affidavit description of the man caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor is SO close to the suspect description that went out over Channel 2. One would furthermore like to suggest that Officer Baker mentioned this man to Inspector Sawyer during their brief rendezvous on the "third or fourth floor" (!).

However! What doesn't fit here is that the Channel 2 description mentions that the man was "carrying what looked to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester"....................

[Alan Ford]

Setting aside the timing issue momentarily..................

Inspector Sawyer will soon be broadcasting the following on Channel 2:

"Well, apparently, the shots might have come from this building. It's unknown whether he's still there or not. It's unknown whether he was there in the first place."

Let's take each element in turn.....................

"It's unknown whether he's still there or not": This does not sound like a description based on a man seen running out the back door of the Depository. Inspector Sawyer's description would seem to have come from a different source.

"It's unknown whether he was there in the first place": This does not sound like a description based on a man seen firing from one of the Depository windows (by e.g. Mr Howard Brennan). (I am assuming here that "in the first place" means at the the actual time shots were fired.) Inspector Sawyer's description would seem to have come from a different source.

One would very much like to suggest that the true source was none other than Officer Marrion Baker, whose affidavit description of the man caught walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor is SO close to the suspect description that went out over Channel 2. One would furthermore like to suggest that Officer Baker mentioned this man to Inspector Sawyer during their brief rendezvous on the "third or fourth floor" (!).

However! What doesn't fit here is that the Channel 2 description mentions that the man was "carrying what looked to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester"....................

It's possible that Inspector Sawyer COMBINED what he heard from Officer Baker (description of man) with what a different witness or officer told him a little earlier or later (description of rifle-------and only of rifle--------seen at time of shooting). The carrying-a-rifle part might simply be Inspector Sawyer's joining of these two dots. His otherwise perplexing uncertainty as to whether THIS man was EITHER in the building at the time OR still in the building now might be explained by just such a joining of the dots.

[Alan Ford]

It's possible that Inspector Sawyer COMBINED what he heard from Officer Baker (description of man) with what a different witness or officer told him a little earlier or later (description of rifle-------and only of rifle--------seen at time of shooting). The carrying-a-rifle part might simply be Inspector Sawyer's joining of these two dots. His otherwise perplexing uncertainty as to whether THIS man was EITHER in the building at the time OR still in the building now might be explained by just such a joining of the dots.

This would also explain another curious transmission by Inspector Sawyer. Asked by the Dispatcher whether there is a clothing description for the suspect, Inspector Sawyer says "Current witness can't remember that".

Current witness-------------suggests that a) the person he has just spoken to is not the only witness he has spoken to, and b) this second witness has given him the rifle-only description. In Inspector Sawyer's brief exchange with Officer Baker on the third or fourth floor several minutes ago, clothing may not have come up, only physical characteristics (height, weight, age, race).

[Rick Plant]

I'm on the record as stating a fact.
Frazier puts himself at the top of the front entrance steps by the rail as the 'parade' goes by. Weigman proves, beyond question, that this is not the case.

Actually, you're stating a falsehood. Weigman doesn't "prove" anything because Buell Frazier wasn't visible due to the darkness of the shadows.   

Looks like you left out this important information Mr. O'meara.

BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. 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.

[Dan O'meara]

Actually, you're stating a falsehood. Weigman doesn't "prove" anything because Buell Frazier wasn't visible due to the darkness of the shadows.   

Looks like you left out this important information Mr. O'meara.

BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. 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.

No I'm not stating a falsehood Rick.

I said:

"Frazier puts himself at the top of the front entrance steps by the rail as the 'parade' goes by."

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.

Mr. FRAZIER - We have a bar rail running about half way up here. This was the first step and I was standing right around there.

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; you can see, just see, the top, about the top rail there, was standing right in there.

Mr. BALL - Did you stand there for 30 minutes or--tell us how long you stayed there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I stood there until the parade come by.

Frazier testifies that he is stood by the rail at the top of the steps of the front entrance and that he is stood there until the "parade come by".
Do you dispute that? Is that a fact or not.

I also wrote:

"Weigman proves, beyond question, that this is not the case."



Above is a still from the Wiegman film. Frazier is nowhere to be seen. Wiegman does indeed prove Frazier was not in the position he specifically testified to being.
Do you dispute that?

Please explain the "falsehood" contained in the statement I made.

[Dan O'meara]

Well Dan, members usually don't copy and paste a reply that was addressed to another member from several months ago (October 4, 2020) in their current reply (March 11, 2021) to a different member which has nothing to do with the current discussion. There's no point to that especially when you replied to my post that was directed at Mr. Ford.

Just read the post Rick. It's fairly self -evident and you were wrong to go off half-cocked about it.
It was your mistake, not mine.

And still you haven't answered any of my questions or provided a single shred of evidence for your bogus Sarah Stanton as Prayer Man claim.

The only claim I'm making as far as Stanton is concerned is that the case for her being Prayer Man is far superior to the case for it being Oswald. Stanton is known to have been on the top landing as was witnessed there by others. This alone makes her case superior.
There is not one scrap of evidence for Oswald being on the top step - literally nothing. But this does not deter some researchers from pushing this  with an almost evangelical zeal. I made the mistake of questioning it and was immediately attacked and I'm not having it.
Earlier in the thread you posted this:

"They want to take a man pictured in the photograph and claim it's a 300+ pound woman. "

What "man" were you referring to?

[Rick Plant]

Just read the post Rick. It's fairly self -evident and you were wrong to go off half-cocked about it.
It was your mistake, not mine.

I didn't make any "mistake". You replied to me with a post from October 4, 2020 that you made to another member that had nothing to do with the current discussion we were having.

The only claim I'm making as far as Stanton is concerned is that the case for her being Prayer Man is far superior to the case for it being Oswald. Stanton is known to have been on the top landing as was witnessed there by others. This alone makes her case superior.

There is no "superior case" for Stanton being the Prayer Man because she never placed herself there, other witnesses don't place her there, her family already said PM wasn't her, and her physical appearance automatically disqualifies her.     

And you still never told me how Stanton was able to appear in your "claimed location" when she was standing on the opposite side confirmed by two witnesses. How did she get there?       

There is not one scrap of evidence for Oswald being on the top step - literally nothing. But this does not deter some researchers from pushing this  with an almost evangelical zeal. I made the mistake of questioning it and was immediately attacked and I'm not having it.

Well, when you try to make a hefty claim with no evidence then you should expect some pushback from researchers. 

Oswald isn't the figure in question here. Sarah Stanton is. The Prayer Man is not Sarah Stanton based on her own FBI testimony, physical appearance, her family stating it's not her, and eye witness accounts.

See, your goal is to keep Oswald out as a potential candidate at any cost, so you try to throw a 300+ pound fat woman into the mix by pretending she is the Prayer Man. That's why your claim is ridiculous. Plus you never can offer any real evidence for your claim because there isn't any.         

Earlier in the thread you posted this:

"They want to take a man pictured in the photograph and claim it's a 300+ pound woman. "

What "man" were you referring to?

The unknown man who is standing there that isn't Sarah Stanton. 

[Alan Ford]

Above is a still from the Wiegman film. Frazier is nowhere to be seen.