Prayer Woman

[Patrick Jackson]

Prayer Person could not be Sarah Stanton since she had a distinctive black hat.
Prayer Person was Pauline Sanders most likely. She was mature and old enough to understand not to force that LHO was on front steps and she never testified in front of Warren Commission. I am also researching Doris Burns.

[Barry Pollard]

Prayer Person could not be Sarah Stanton since she had a distinctive black hat.
Prayer Person was Pauline Sanders most likely. She was mature and old enough to understand not to force that LHO was on front steps and she never testified in front of Warren Commission. I am also researching Doris Burns.

Hi Patrick.
The odd hat gal next to Maddie Resse has been named elsewhere as Ruth Dean.

But whether this comes from document research or photographic I have no idea but I suspect the former.
Where did you learn it was Stanton? Perhaps the two sources are actually the same after a change of heart.

[Patrick Jackson]

Hi Patrick.
The odd hat gal next to Maddie Resse has been named elsewhere as Ruth Dean.

But whether this comes from document research or photographic I have no idea but I suspect the former.
Where did you learn it was Stanton? Perhaps the two sources are actually the same after a change of heart.

Uh, it is a good question about Sarah Stanton. Maybe I am wrong but I think somebody stated she was wearing that black hat.

[Larry Trotter]

Hi Michael,
you made a rather sensible statement on the EF, rather than getting involved in the speculation you wrote;
"Does all this matter? The guy[PM] could be LHO but we'll never know until a better copy of the film is found".

Now has your opinion really changed or are you just bored of the endless and mostly fruitless talk?
I agree with what you wrote there, even though the odds are extreemly thin for it but that's just based on all the other observations in the photographic evidence that have amounted to nought(you know, gunmen and shadowy figures who turn out to be innocents or figments of imagination, discrepancies in the films etc) and not where LHO "has to be".
Someone else says "it's not just about the images" but I dissagree, either it's him or it's not and it looks enough like him to maintain my interest for now.

When there's true "reliable evidence" against it, like proving he's a she or that it's stood on the landing then I'll move on but there's more here that interests me than just the Oswald angle, some people's idea of what real evidence is an endless source of wonder and interesting speculation is what we're all here for.

I have to wonder, as I wander, where is any reliable provable evidence for a conclusion that the PrayerPersonImage represents LeeHarveyOswald?

As a courtesy, reliable provable evidence has been acquired, and presented, for a conclusion that the PrayerPersonImage actually represents a female, then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building. And, said evidence therefor forces a conclusion that eliminates any male, especially LeeHarveyOswald, from being represented by the PrayerPersonImage.

[Larry Trotter]

Prayer Person could not be Sarah Stanton since she had a distinctive black hat.
Prayer Person was Pauline Sanders most likely. She was mature and old enough to understand not to force that LHO was on front steps and she never testified in front of Warren Commission. I am also researching Doris Burns.

I am confident that the LadyImage dressed in black and wearing a black hat does NOT represent Ms SarahDeanStanton.

I do believe that Ms PaulineEllenRebmanSanders provided a statement/testimony to the FederalBureau of Investigation regarding her experiences of 11/22/'63, as pertaining to the JFK Sr Assassination and JBC Jr CriticalWounding.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm

[Michael Walton]

As long as the "LeeHarveyOswald is PrayerManTheory" is promoted as fact , anyone wishing to dispute the identification of "PrayerPersonImage" should continue to do so.

Larry, I'm puzzled why you say this. Nothing about this theory has made it any further up than on conspiracy theory forums.  No government body is saying it's a fact that it's Oswald up there. Whether you believe the theory or not, it's just that - a  theory - and nothing more.  Just like the thrumming copter theory that Brian believes in and I don't.

[Larry Trotter]

Larry, I'm puzzled why you say this. Nothing about this theory has made it any further up than on conspiracy theory forums.  No government body is saying it's a fact that it's Oswald up there. Whether you believe the theory or not, it's just that - a  theory - and nothing more.  Just like the thrumming copter theory that Brian believes in and I don't.

Actually Michael, it is quite simple as I see it. When the LeeHarveyOswald is PrayerManTheory became a "subject" a few years back, I had to wonder, as I wandered, how it could be possible for the accused LoneGunmanAssassin, after about 50 years, to have been on the landing,among several other persons employed at the TSBD, and yet no one reported seeing him there at the time of the shooting.

However, some uh, researchers agreed with the theory, so a dispute began. But, it appears to be those that dispute said theory are the ones frowned upon on other forums, and the subject was "shut down", and/or moved to an "area away from the mainstream discussion" area. However,the theory promoters could "freely bring it up at will", but the disputers were the "criticized" posters, and appear to have had actions taken regarding "posting privileges."

Also, in an apparent effort to aide the LHO/PMT, an attempt to claim that the SecondFloorLunchRoom Encounter, where DPD Officer MarrionLewisBaker, and TSBD BuildingSuperintendent RoySansomTruly, encountered LeeHarveyOswald at/or near the lunchroom did not occur, and was a "hoax". The SFLRE "HoaxTheory" primary evidence was that known participants and/or eyewitnesses, mostly deceased, were "liars".

So, I would think that the LHO/PM Theory promoters, and the SFLRE HoaxTheory promoters need to provide reliable provable evidence for "Their Claims", instead of "Subject Removal" and criticism of said theories' disputers.