Prayer Woman

[Mark A. Oblazney]

I still think it was a dude taking pictures with a camera.  Couldn't that be possible?  Just from looking at that brief film footage/stills of him holding up what I believe is a camera?

[Rick Plant]

To me there is a figure holding an object but it's not clear what that object is. It's interesting to read everybody's take on this subject  but there is no way somebody can 100% conclusively determine who a figure is when the figure is a blob or a heavily distorted image.

[Thomas Graves]

I still think it was a dude taking pictures with a camera.  Couldn't that be possible?  Just from looking at that brief film footage/stills of him holding up what I believe is a camera?

Mark,

Do you think a camera lens in the shade like that would have reflected that much light?

-- MWT 

[Bill Brown]

On film....

Oswald: I work in that building.

Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?

Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.


Therefore, Oswald was not out on the front steps or on the landing.

If Oswald was not out on the front steps or the landing, then he is not Prayer Man/Prayer Woman.

So, who cares who that person was?

[Tom Scully]

On film....

Oswald: I work in that building.

Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?

Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.


Therefore, Oswald was not out on the front steps or on the landing.

If Oswald was not out on the front steps or the landing, then he is not Prayer Man/Prayer Woman.

So, who cares who that person was?

Bill Brown, not many years ago, you visited Ruth Paine. I am reposting this quote here.

Question for Bill Brown.:

Removing your Sandinista (sourced from Carol Hewett as retold by DiEugenio or perhaps Bill Kelly?  ) suspicions,
This is what remains. (quoted below):

....I shared the following details with Jim DiEugenio on November 15, 2015. It appears since then DiEugenio preferred to keep you from awareness of these facts.
Could it be because these facts are less prejudicial to Ruth Paine's rep?....

Kindly respond there, especially if you are familiar with past suspicions of Ruth's work in Nicaragua. Thank you.

[Barry Pollard]

As I do not recall ever affording any EvidentiaryValue to the as presented PrayerPersonImage FacialFeatureEnhancement, often attributed to ChrisDavidson, perhaps BarryPollard can provide any documented posting as confirmation for my having done so(?)

Larry you haven't any experience in image manipulation, so your opinion in this field isn't really worth reading let alone remembering but here's the point.  Brian produced taped evidence that the face he likes as Stanton was dismissed by two people that actually knew her and here was your only contribution when I focused on it;

I thought the "not her" comment attributed to Wanda and/or Rosa... was in reference to ScarfLadyImage

You never corrected your mistake or commented on it again.  Would you care to do so now or talk on it's significance to Brian's overall agenda?  I've already guessed it's a no, so there you go, a chance to prove me wrong, a first.
I can think of no other significant evidence that Brian produced in that "interview" and that's what you call research?  A diligent and systematic inquiry, it was not.  It was agenda driven but that's something else you rather conveniently failed to pick up on right?

[Barry Pollard]

As noted, a partial rendering of research developed indicative evidence that  indicates SarahStanton is the person represented by PrayerPersonImage aka PrayerWomanImage.

That junk has been around for almost six decades and everyone that you'd call even half a researcher has been over it three or four times at least, so are you saying that it has only "recently developed" IN YOUR MIND?  Ahh, I see.  Welcome to the case.  May I ask what you were doing all these years before PM became an issue?

Witness testimony doesn't mean as much as it used to.  You're stuck in the past and you won't even begin to look for a way out of that nasty little hole you are caught in.  Even if the prosectution wasn't biased as it was, you'd still be playing a dangerous game by throwing the word "evidence" around when referring to testimony.  Circumstantial is what it is, at best.  We have far better stuff pointing us all to the Grassy Knoll.