Prayer Woman

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 1112398 times)

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #1708 on: April 17, 2019, 12:17:07 AM »
So was Karen Westbrook.



Put all the people that were there that day in one room and anyone one of us(you know who you are) would know more about that day than the lot of 'em.
"I was there" don't mean squat.  In fact, you should be scared of those folks and those that fawn over them because they are all about their feelings and remembrances which is the complete opposite to what we are supposed to be doing.

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #1709 on: April 17, 2019, 12:21:00 AM »
This might help those tired eyes of yours. 


I'm ignoring Pollard...He's being allowed to get away with murder by denying my good proofs...His JimD-like evasions do not overturn the forensic points I made about credible photogrammetry confirming that this is a photo of Oswald superimposed through infra-pixelation procedures over Sarah Stanton...He has no answer to the fact that I have established that Stanton stood on the west side of the entrance as a diet suppressant methodology in a Presidential-visit professional situation... My evidence science here is unanswerable despite Pollard's childish game-playing

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #1710 on: April 17, 2019, 12:35:17 AM »
He has no answer to the fact that I have established that Stanton stood on the west side of the entrance as a diet suppressant methodology in a Presidential-visit professional situation...

"Diet suppressant methodology".



You can't possibly be for real.

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #1711 on: April 17, 2019, 12:38:47 AM »
"Diet suppressant methodology".



You can't possibly be for real.

I'm ignoring Iacoletti again... His uncredibly naysaying good evidence is typical of the community that doesn't understand the best evidence on the internet on the topic...

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #1712 on: April 17, 2019, 12:51:58 AM »


I've highlighted where the two "white" areas are and gave them an arrow each for where the color begins to change*, so that darker area in-between would be your strap huh?
*Roughly because I'm not using a proper tools yet but you know, whatchowt.

Quote
the forensic points I made about credible photogrammetry confirming that this is a photo of Oswald superimposed through infra-pixelation procedures
Genius.
 
It's almost like he has no inner voice telling him to check himself.  What if he has us all fooled because he never even reads half the crap he writes, not even while typing it?

« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 07:15:43 AM by Barry Pollard »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #1713 on: April 17, 2019, 01:22:35 AM »
Poor Mr Nickerson evidently wasn't aware of the other video which confirms that Mr Frazier was indeed talking about Ms Stanton, the lady to his left. And now he has to contend with Mr Frazier's HSCA confirmation that this "large, heavyset" lady was not wearing a dark wig on 11/22/63.

You claimed that Frazier said that Sarah Stanton was to his left in interviews (e.g. to Mr G Mack). That was a false statement on your part.  In the interview with Gary Mack, he did not name the woman who stood to his left. The interview in which he points to both the left and the right was with Tom Meros. Frazier did NOT specifically state that Sarah Stanton stood to his left. He has stated on at least one occasion that Sarah Stanton was standing near him on the top step back in the shadows. Where is the woman standing to his left, back in the shadows?

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #1714 on: April 17, 2019, 01:27:50 AM »
"So we stepped back in.  Several of 'em stepped back in."

Thanks Bill. I've have a terrible ear when comes to discerning statements like that.

Here is a much more discernible statement from Frazier: