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

[Dan O'meara]

I disagree.  Frazier's location is in a deep shadow in Wiegman.  Just because you can't see him doesn't mean he's not there.

Frazier puts himself at the front of the landing, one step down at the time the motorcade passes by. This is not in deep shadow:

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.

Wiegman proves Frazier is not in this position when the motorcade passes by.
Frazier moves out after Wiegman and is captured in Darnell.
(Unless, of course, he's stood out front, sees Wiegman about to start filming, dives back inside then waits for Darnell to come by before he jumps out again)

[Dan O'meara]

What exactly do you think needs explaining, Mr O'Meara?

Back in the day you believed the "impossible shadow" was put there to cover up Bill Shelley and you very deceptively used shaky frames from Wiegman to show Shelley was stood behind Lovelady when it was just a double exposure of Lovelady's head.

Then you changed your tune.

In Reply #66 you insisted it was Carolyn Arnold who was being "erased from history" and that her arm could be seen in Altgens 6 shielding her eyes.

"My proposed solution:

Who does Mr Lovelady point to in the Altgens photograph when he tells Mr Bonafede: "That lady shielding her eyes works here on the second floor"? Why, Ms Carolyn Arnold----------------



Where in the Altgens photograph is she? Why, just below him, shielding her eyes------------------



She's the reason for that ludicrous, physically impossible shadow artificially added down Mr Lovelady's side in the Wiegman film------"

You then change your tune again.

This time the shadow is there to cover up the fact Lovelady is wearing long sleeves (Reply #331):

"1. The original Wiegman film showed Mr Lovelady wearing his shirt sleeves rolled down
2. The Darnell film------------which was already out in circulation in the public sphere and so couldn't be messed with--------------showed a man resembling two male Depository employees = a man with his sleeves rolled up, standing on his own near the west wall of the entranceway (=the man we know as Prayer Man)
3. The 'investigating' authorities knew that this man could not be Mr Lovelady; in fact they knew he was none other than Mr Oswald (the suspect who had clearly stated that he had gone outside to watch the Presidential parade)
4. There was only one thing for it: to take out insurance cover for the day someone noticed sleeves-rolled-up-man and said 'Hey, maybe that's Oswald!': turn Mr Lovelady into a credible candidate for sleeves-rolled-up-man (i.e. Prayer Man) by covering up his right arm in the Wiegman film (and getting him to pretend he had worn a short-sleeved shirt that day)"


So here we have Lovelady's arm blacked out so he could be confused with Oswald/Prayer Man (how this could happen when both Lovelady and PM are shown in the same frame you never quite explain).

Then you change your tune again.

Instead of covering up Lovelady's sleeve to confuse him with PM, his sleeve is now blocked out for a very different reason:

"I am suggesting that Mr Lovelady's sleeved right arm needed to be blackened out in Wiegman because they needed folks to believe that they were seeing his unsleeved left arm in Altgens---------when in fact that 'unsleeved left arm' of Mr Lovelady in Altgmens was something else entirely:"

So what is this "something else entirely"?



"In a nutshell, I believe this is the right arm (and coke) of Prayer Man"

So the arm in Altgens has, according to you, gone from belonging to Carolyn Arnold shielding her eyes to Oswald enjoying a coke!

"What exactly do you think needs explaining, Mr O'Meara?"

To use someone elses phrase - this is what needs a 'log of 'splainin':

You have insisted the arm in Altgens 6 was Arnold's and then Oswald's arm holding a coke. How, then, can you explain that the arm in question has the check pattern on it we see on the rest of Lovelady's shirt:



A mundane explanation of this would be that its the sleeve of Lovelady's shirt. That's why it seems to be connected to his shoulder and is the same pattern as the rest of his shirt.
I can't wait to hear what your explanation is 

[Walt Cakebread]

Just for the record Rick, I'd like to point out something I said in Reply #514

"Fred claimed the Sarah Stanton/Prayer Man ID had been debunked and I wanted to know about that claim.
I've read through the threads he provided and found that the Stanton ID hasn't been debunked there so that was a wild goose chase (as I expected) But you, with your years of "reading. And reading. And reading", maybe you can point me in the right direction.
Just for the record, I've never claimed to have "a great deal of knowledge" about this subject, that's a blatant falsehood on your behalf. I've always been modest about being a Newbie and have held my hands up to the rookie mistakes I've made (and will make in the future).
As for Prayer Man being a "pointless diversion" - it's not me you need to be telling. I've taken an anti-PM stance because I find something about it unpleasant. I couldn't give a sh$t if it's Stanton on the steps or not. it has no bearing on how I view this whole event but I won't just sit back while being attacked by researchers such as yourself for exploring a possibility."

The Stanton thing is an anti- Prayer Man stance.
I find the rabid mentality displayed by PM zealots is something that needs challenging.
There is zero evidence Oswald was on the steps at the time of the assassination and plenty against.
It makes no difference to me whether it's Stanton, Oswald or Jimmy Hoffa stood in the shadows on the steps.

There is zero evidence Oswald was on the steps at the time of the assassination and plenty against.

Yes, You're right.....The major hurdle is the fact that Lee was seen and verified to have been in the second floor lunchroom about one minute after the LAST shot was fired.  ( LBJ's cover up  committee started the stop watch at the sound of the FIRST shot)     

[John Iacoletti]

Frazier puts himself at the front of the landing, one step down at the time the motorcade passes by. This is not in deep shadow:

Frazier has said in other interviews that he was standing on the landing.

[Alan Ford]

Back in the day you believed the "impossible shadow" was put there to cover up Bill Shelley and you very deceptively used shaky frames from Wiegman to show Shelley was stood behind Lovelady when it was just a double exposure of Lovelady's head.

Then you changed your tune.

There are facts, and then there are speculative attempts to account for these facts.

a) Impossible Shadow Down Mr Lovelady In Wiegman = Fact

b) Speculative Attempts To Account For This Fact = Speculative Attempts To Account For This Fact

I have been unwavering about a), open to a range of possibilities for b).

You are still in denial about a)

You have insisted the arm in Altgens 6 was Arnold's and then Oswald's arm holding a coke. How, then, can you explain that the arm in question has the check pattern on it we see on the rest of Lovelady's shirt

A mundane explanation of this would be that its the sleeve of Lovelady's shirt. That's why it seems to be connected to his shoulder and is the same pattern as the rest of his shirt.

Lol

[Alan Ford]

I had no idea there were other Stanton fans out there.

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

 Stanton's own testimony refutes their absurd claim.

They don't give a damn who it is as long as it's not Mr Oswald. Why, when the PM image first came to attention a bunch of Nutters assured everyone '"It's Billy Lovelady!" When that didn't pan out, they pivoted to "It's an obese woman!" Tells you a lot about the intellectual honesty of Team Keep LHO Away From Them Steps

[Dan O'meara]

There are facts, and then there are speculative attempts to account for these facts.

a) Impossible Shadow Down Mr Lovelady In Wiegman = Fact

b) Speculative Attempts To Account For This Fact = Speculative Attempts To Account For This Fact

I have been unwavering about a), open to a range of possibilities for b).

You are still in denial about a)

Lol

You dare talk about denial while you refuse to explain Lovelady's shirt sleeve in this detailed Altgens pic rather than the over-exposed version you cling to, that has all detail washed out of it.
This isn't going away Alan.
Explain the above image 

[Rick Plant]

Just for the record Rick, I'd like to point out something I said in Reply #514

"Fred claimed the Sarah Stanton/Prayer Man ID had been debunked and I wanted to know about that claim.
I've read through the threads he provided and found that the Stanton ID hasn't been debunked there so that was a wild goose chase (as I expected) But you, with your years of "reading. And reading. And reading", maybe you can point me in the right direction.
Just for the record, I've never claimed to have "a great deal of knowledge" about this subject, that's a blatant falsehood on your behalf. I've always been modest about being a Newbie and have held my hands up to the rookie mistakes I've made (and will make in the future).
As for Prayer Man being a "pointless diversion" - it's not me you need to be telling. I've taken an anti-PM stance because I find something about it unpleasant. I couldn't give a sh$t if it's Stanton on the steps or not. it has no bearing on how I view this whole event but I won't just sit back while being attacked by researchers such as yourself for exploring a possibility."

The Stanton thing is an anti- Prayer Man stance.
I find the rabid mentality displayed by PM zealots is something that needs challenging.
There is zero evidence Oswald was on the steps at the time of the assassination and plenty against.
It makes no difference to me whether it's Stanton, Oswald or Jimmy Hoffa stood in the shadows on the steps.

Not sure why you are taking offense at my comment.

You and a couple of others made the false claim that Sarah Stanton is the Prayer Man. One crackpot goes as far to say he has "proven it's Stanton" but can only provide bogus claims for his "so called evidence". When you make a hefty claim as that, you need to provide specific evidence to back up that claim. Not vague references, fabrications, and dismissals as your "evidence".   

Each time I pose a question asking that specific individual how Sarah Stanton was able to be in the Prayer Man position when she was identified on the opposite side, I never get a real answer from that person. I get the same responses as yours, which feigned indignation and my question always is ignored. The reason? That person has no answer to for their failed claim. 

It's a simple question to answer. How was Stanton able to get in the Prayer Man position (as you claim) when she was on the opposite side? All I get is continued obfuscation and no real answer whenever I ask someone who claims Stanton is the Prayer Man.       

Yes, the Sarah Stanton claim has been debunked and I took part in that debunking.

Being a "newbie" has nothing to do with it. You don't even have to know one thing about the assassination. I've asked people that don't know anything about JFK to look at the photo and tell me if they think the Prayer Man is a 300+ pound woman aka Sarah Stanton. They all say "no" and they believe it's a male figure due to the head and receding hairline.

You can explore all the possibilities you want, but you need to back that up with solid evidence, and when that evidence debunks the claim it's time to face the facts that "possibility" is now debunked.         

Now Buell Frazier, Pauline Sanders, and Sarah Stanton herself all place her on the opposite side. Sarah Stanton in her FBI testimony never places herself in the Prayer Man position. Are you going to disregard her testimony?

Obviously you do care because you're very upset over it.

The fact of the matter is, certain people don't want the Prayer Man to be Lee Harvey Oswald, so they use Sarah Stanton as a "stand in" to claim it's not Oswald.

These same people use the "either or" argument. They say it has to either be Oswald or Stanton for their failed claim and they refuse to acknowledge that it can be another unknown person standing there.     

If it makes no difference to you, then why do you keep making absurd claims that Stanton is the Prayer Man, when it's obviously not, by just looking at the size of the figure? The person in the photo is not a 300+ pound woman no matter how hard you try to push for it to be.

And on top of that, Stanton's daughter in law and granddaughter are on audio confirming that Stanton was "huge" at that time. She couldn't get out of the backseat of a car at a funeral because she was so big. That description does not fit the size of the Prayer Man because the Prayer Man in the photo is not "huge" well over 300+ pounds.