JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Duncan MacRae on April 01, 2018, 04:24:52 PM

Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on April 01, 2018, 04:24:52 PM
As new facts and analysis become available, this article may be ammended at any time,

Please feel free to discuss and debate anything about the individual known as "Prayer Woman"

The "Prayer Woman is a man" theory, as promoted by others, can also be discussed here.

Duncan MacRae: Article - Tuesday, 12 January 2016 - Including Fresh Edits & Content Inclusions.

Prayer Person - Prayer Man Or Prayer Woman?

The case for the probabliity of an unidentified person seen in motion in a shadowed area near the front door of the Texas School Book Depository entrance being a woman.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zquNcX0pqHs/VpVF-Y3UOHI/AAAAAAAAAQw/MMYjUOpYpSE/s320/mf1.jpg)

Below: Cropped, enlarged & minimally enhanced Chris Davidson Illustration

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Enhancedchris.gif)(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ChrisEnhanced.gif)
                                           
The truth and fact of the matter is, that currently, there is not any clear enough photographic evidence, tangible physical evidence, circumstantial evidence or hearsay of any description, which can prove for certain, one way or the other, that the Prayer Person mystery figure is either a man or a woman. "Prayer Person" is the term preferred to be used by persons with no single opinion, or a varying and changeable opinion.

"Prayer Man" is a term coined by JFK Assassination researcher Sean Murphy.

"Prayer Woman" is a term coined by JFK Assassination Researcher Duncan MacRae, although the first known people to suggest that the mystery figure may be a woman were JFK Assassination Researchers Robin Unger and Pat Speer.

The object of this article is not to put forward a case for the what the identity of Prayer Person is, HOWEVER, consider this recorded dictated fact that could perhaps reveal the true identity of Prayer Woman as being Texas School Book Depository employee, Pauline Sanders.

Extract To Consider: Pauline Sanders November 24th 1963.

By Special Agent ROBERT E. HASAM and ROBERT J. ANDERSON Date Dictated 11/24/63 FBI Texas File # 89-43 ",

She said on the morning of November 22, 1963, she went outside to watch the Presidential parade at about 11:25 a.m. She said she did not see OSWALD during this time and she stood in the last line of spectators NEAREST THE DOOR to the Texas School Book Depository building"

Note that she says "nearest the door" and not "nearest the steps"

The main object of this article is to put forward a persuasive case for Prayer Person being a woman, based on analysis of the currently available images.

Prayer woman being identified as being Pauline Sanders is only a considered possibility.

TSBD employee Sarah Stanton is this Author's only other considered possibility, based on the Mytton size analysis of the Prayer Woman
figure, and a recorded interview with the relatives of Sarah Stanton ( See Below )


Identity reveals presented by all other parties studying this unidentified person, by default, must also be classed as speculative, where no verifiable proof of solid hard evidence can be provided.

The currently available images are, unfortunately, only multi generational pixelated copies of Cine Camera films taken on November 22nd 1963 that captured the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository as the Presidential Limo made its journey through Dealey Plaza before, during and after the assassination.

The primary source for analysis of the unidentified, and as yet unidentifiable mystery figure has been extracted single frames from a black and white film taken by press photographer James Darnell.

The frames from the Darnell film, being (arguably)clearer at the mystery person darkened location area, than frames from other films in their copied forms, is the preferred choice for analysis by researchers who debate that Prayer Person is a man vs Prayer Person is a woman.

There are few choices of conclusion available to believe or not believe for readers and viewers of the many presented analysis that have been posted on the internet and elsewhere to be considered.
1. Non determinible
2. Male
3. Female

This article is objective in the fact that being subjective, or having a belief in something, should not be presented by any Authors as fact, or accepted by any judges, readers and / or viewers as fact.

This simple rule should always be practiced when making considerations before reaching a preferred conclusion.

Conclusions reached here, based on the currently available resources, will therefore be subjective, just the same as any arguments presenting any other conclusions can only be, and must also be classed as subjective where no verifiable proof of solid hard evidence can be provided.

Any presenter presenting and trying to convey subjective or objective opinion as fact, is misleading the judge, the reader or the viewer.
The (A knew B, B knew C = C knew A) useless nonsensical equation often used and favoured by many illogical non critical thinking pretentious and narcissistic JFK Assassination researchers such as James DiEugenio, Bart Larry Grayson doppleganger Bart " Ooooh...Shut That Door" Kamp et al, in order to sell merchandise and/or to capture the interest and votes of gullible readers, viewers and judges will not be practiced here. The stupid self serving equation does not represent actual fact, and should not be considered as actual fact by any logical thought process.

Beware of any published articles which produce this often repetative subliminally persuasive illogical equation method of capturing a sometimes gullible audience approval.

First Impressions:

The first obvious impression that one gets when viewing the mystery person, is how small the figure appears to be in comparison to the known and identifiable six feet tall Buell Wesley Frazier, who appears to be looking in the general direction of the subject. Frazier has recently stated that the image is not clear enough for him to identify the mystery person, and that he cannot recall from memory who the mystery person is, or what the gender of the person is.

Frazier's response is understandable given the time period that has passed between 1963, and then being asked for the first time, the Who was the mystery figure?question more than fifty years later.

Some say that Frazier is hiding that he really knows who the mystery person is. The only problem with this accusation however, is that the accusers, as usual, have not one bit of evidence to prove their accusation. They simply want the mystery person to be OSWALD...AT ALL COST...regardless of the researchable evidence which strongly suggests otherwise.

Frazier's height however, does perhaps gives us a clue to the height of the mystery person, assuming that is, that they are both standing in line with each other, are both standing on the same level and are both standing straight, just as the Darnell frames appear to show.
This is of course, and like everything else in any image analysis of this specific subject matter, a subjective analysis.

Researcher John Mytton carried out a computerised graphic height comparison analysis, the results of which are shown in the graphic below.
The John Mytton calculation is based on Prayer Person standing on the landing and being in a straight up standing position. The height of the mystery person has been calculated to be around five feet and three inches tall, the known and verifiable recorded average height of the average American female in 1963.

This first impression and computerised graphic and mathematical calculation of the persons height, logically leans in favour towards the know recorded average height of the average American female in 1963, rather than leaning towards the height of the know recorded average height of the American average male in 1963.

Graphics & Calculations

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tNl0MlqIl9M/VpVGTQxAF7I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/VfmAr1fnrHM/s320/pmheight.jpg)
 
Let's have a closer look

"In the following gif, the modern colour image was taken very close to the original and can be used to help visualize the height of the top step in the original. According to the position of the camera the top step is relatively straight on, and prayer person is to the left and slightly behind Frazier so by establishing the vanishing point we can then "generously" enlarge prayer person proportionately into the same plane occupied by Frazier "

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3XICOPAKsww/VpVHCMKugZI/AAAAAAAAARA/lfsGkoWHdio/s320/comparison.gif)
 
Zooming in

When we zoom in on the mystery person in the Darnell frames, everything appears very difficult to decipher, other than it is an unrecognisable human being standing in the shadowed area, or a mannequin dummy of a human being placed in the shadowed area for some unknown reason. In the name of common sense and high improbability, let's rule out the latter.

The Zoom

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6mf9COHlRYg/VpVHV9k1nrI/AAAAAAAAARI/RUiGhFOaGYo/s320/mysterlady2.gif)
 
Gradual increase in brightness and contrast and a sharpening filter is used to make the image appear a bit more decipherable. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
At the end of the day, it is all in the eye of the beholder, and it is still difficult to process any information which might give clues to the gender of the mystery person.
There may be a couple of clues revealed however via the zoomed image and by using a bit of imagination.
The following observations are once again completely subjective, but subjectivity is all that anyone can present when presenting an analysis of such poor quality images.
Some researchers claim as a fact that Oswald is the mystery person, and that his hairline is clearly visible in any analysis.
This is of course complete nonsense.
To to make such a claim based on poor quality images is simply not credible research. It is merely a subjective opinion.
Can the gender of the mystery person be determined?
When viewing the above image, some female bias observations can be made. 1. It has been determined in this article that the height of the person has a high probability of being around five foot three inches.
2. The figure appears to have barely visible, but long hair at the back, merged in the dark background, longer than most American men wore in 1963
3. The stance of the mystery person appears to be that of a typical 1960's woman holding her purse or a small bag.
Yet again, all of the above observations while completely possible, are all subjective observations
Also Note: While reference is made to the mystery person being "an average American" there is of course no proof that the mystery person was American.
 
Let's Recap

1. The determined height of the mystery person stands at a high probability of being around five feet three inches tall. 2. The figure appears to have barely visible, but long hair at the back, longer than any man wore in 1963
3. The figure appears to be wearing a long coat.
4. The stance of the mystery person appears to be that of a typical 1960's woman holding her purse or a small bag.

Conclusion

Based on all of the listed and at present subjective points, I conclude that there is a high probability that the mystery person is of a female gender. The truth of course will never be known until clearer images surface, and a new, and hopefully objective analysis can begin.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BfMZIdixGkI/V1aUEP7D9hI/AAAAAAAAAR0/YwPwqICO6Ug4zhPvu82XsXq8xFIGLF95gCLcB/s1600/pw2.jpg)

Enlarged and minimally enhanced close up view of what is possibly a woman's face, including one minimally enhanced colorized version.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwa1.jpg)(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwa21.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 01, 2018, 04:50:50 PM
   Stancak's cartoon of Prayer Man has an inseam on his leg that is over 2 inches longer than Frazier's...The problem with that is Frazier was 6 foot 1/2 inch in height and Oswald was 5 foot 9...So what no one on the Education Forum pointed out to Stancak is that he had refuted himself by showing he could not make his Oswald with a foot on the step work...I had asked Stancak to post his Oswald cartoon for over a year because I knew he could not make it fit...When he proved my point not one of the posters on the EF noticed it...A 5 foot 9 person cannot have an inseam that is over 2 inches longer than a 6 foot 1/2 inch person...Thank you Andrej...Despite your unending excuses and taking a year to post things you have proven Prayer Man is on the landing as Barry Pollard proved a long time ago with his GIF of all Prayer Man film images...This is evidence that Stancak tweaked his Prayer Man image to make it fit which is the equivalent of cheating in the academic world and charlatanism...


Anyone can see that Stancak's Oswald has grotesque legs that are out of proportion with his upper body...We have tech now a days that can replicate things to an uncanny degree of accuracy so these massive errors in size are inexcusable for someone who pretends computer graphic skill...If Stancak's Oswald were stood up on the landing it would look like a comical giraffe man...In other words he has refuted himself...

         
My arguments for this are on my Facebook "Prayer Woman" page...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 01, 2018, 11:18:33 PM
The Davidson enhancement shows, in my opinion, a photographic image that can be said to credibly, definitively display enough photographic data to conclusively say the face is female...Even the Murphy backers admitted it looked like a female when shown but they then lied and said it was a mirage-like illusion caused by photographic quirks...

I assure you the face is that of Sarah Stanton as Frazier told us...

Andrej Stancak doesn't realize he has refuted himself here and proven my point...I have been asking him to post his cartoon graphic of Prayer Man with one foot on the step for over a year and he finally did it...If you take a measuring tool and measure Prayer Man's inseam in this graphic you will see it is 2.5 inches longer than Frazier's...Only that is impossible because Frazier was 6 foot 1/2 inches and Oswald was 5 foot 9...Anyone can see with their naked eye that Prayer Man's right leg is disproportionately long when compared to his upper body...No one on the Education Forum noticed this or pointed it out to Stancak...By refuting himself Stancak has proven my claim that Prayer Man was standing with both feet on the landing...To quote Andrej Stancak as he himself posted on the Education Forum: "If Prayer Man is standing with both feet on the landing then he is too short to be Oswald"...I have been excluded from the Education Forum, even though I have superior skill, because the Murphy gang deliberately shields itself from the truth...

(https://scontent.fman2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29542099_1776960705945465_7414801388411429917_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=8a98074c0be6b27af376b71277ff70c1&oe=5B3030C4)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 02, 2018, 04:45:36 PM
A credible researcher would see a serious refutation of his work and rush to defend it...An uncredible one would do his best to exploit fatally-biased moderation and hide, pretending that refutation didn't exist and that its presenter need not be recognized because of his being banned...This is the death of academic credibility and free speech as well as community credibility...

What you see here is a pure case of researchers ignoring correct evidence and making up false reasons for its denial...They will never outlive that as far as credibility...

They are literally ignoring proof that my height analysis is valid and therefore Prayer Person can't be Oswald...
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 02, 2018, 05:53:04 PM
The pro-Prayer Person members of the Education Forum do not demand scientific rigor because they only see what they want to see and don't fully test their presentations with full scrutiny of all the evidence...

In Wiegman Prayer Woman is facing forward...Since Prayer Woman's height never changes in any of the film evidence that means for Stancak's theory to be true Prayer Woman would have to have her foot on the step in Wiegman too...However Wiegman shows a position for Prayer Woman that would be awfully awkward for a person to have a foot forward on the step...

Stancak has failed to answer to the scientific details of my height analysis because, if he made a cartoon graphic for Prayer Woman in Wiegman, he would see that the foot being on the step with Prayer Woman's shoulders squared forward would necessarily, by normal physical body movements, require Prayer Woman to come forward due to center of gravity shifting that would cause the person to come forward in order to have one foot on the step...Go ahead and try it on some steps somewhere...
         
For Stancak's theory to be true would therefore require Prayer Woman to pivot from Wiegman to Darnell (As shown in Pollard's GIF) on her right leg since Stancak shows the right leg as the one being on the step...One does not even need to view Pollard's GIF to see that this one foot down pivot is not what we see in the films nor is such a pivot something a person would do when stretched in such an extraordinary position...A person would step back up to the landing if they made such a turn and would therefore increase in height by 7 inches - but we don't see that in the films...We see Prayer Woman stay the same height...Such a pivot would require Prayer Woman's center of gravity to be over the step and not landing - but one look at Stancak's overhead graphic shows Prayer Woman to be squarely over the landing and not the steps as body movements would require...

To wit:   Stancak's one step down claim has to be repeated in Wiegman because Prayer Woman's height does not change between Wiegman and Darnell...Stancak's theory requires Prayer Woman's right foot to be on the step in Wiegman where Prayer Woman's shoulders are squared to the landing...Physical science requires a person with squared shoulders to shift forward according to center of gravity if they place a foot on the step...All photographic images of the portal show that Prayer Woman is too far back in relation to the features of the west wall of the portal to be forward on that step like Wiegman requires...Stancak himself places Prayer Woman centered on the landing in his overhead image...Stancak's sun plane would illuminate Prayer Woman if she came forward in Wiegman as this physical science requires...
           
Again, Stancak has refuted himself here and none of the Education Forum members even noticed or held him to the full accountable science the JFK Assassination Community pretends to call for...Sorry if I'm being "long and annoying"...   

:-X
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 03, 2018, 06:18:30 PM
The above image is from Wiegman...It is criminal that there are hypocrites out there selling themselves as the best researchers on the internet who avoid doing basic photographic forensics on this image...This is what happens when you let individuals run things in a Lord Of The Flies manner without any formal oversight...

Anyone who was competently overseeing the discussion of the Prayer Person evidence would note that Prayer Person has his shoulders squared to the landing in Wiegman...Again, anyone with the necessary evidence analysis skill to participate in this discussion would notice that since Prayer Person never changes height in any of the film images that means for Stancak's theory to be true Prayer Person must have his foot on the step in this image as well...But that's not what we see in the Davidson enhancement Duncan just posted...

I urge anyone following this evidence to go to their nearest step and stand with one foot down on the step from the landing...Then hold your hands up to your face and act like you are looking through a purse...I just did it and the first thing that happened was I felt unstable and started to lose balance...There's only one body reaction that would occur from that and it would be seeking stability which would involve going up to the landing or down to the step with both feet...But this is not what we see in the films of Prayer Person...What we see is stability and a smooth pivot from Wiegman to Darnell...

You must keep in mind that Stancak is assuring us this is all perfectly reasonable and this awkward one foot down stance is perfectly comfortable and is what Prayer Person is doing...No way!...Just the pivot alone from Wiegman to Darnell shown in Barry Pollard's GIF would cause Prayer Person to seek stability and come up to the landing (therefore gaining 7 inches in height)...

This latest Davidson image shown by Duncan shows Stanton's purse in even more detail than before...Though jackasses like David Josephs say these images can't be used and we need better scans anyone with average eyesight can see that isn't true and professional film experts will agree that Davidson does validly show the clearly visible face of Sarah Stanton on Prayer Person and solves the issue...Kamp saw Davidson but lied and said the woman's face was a mirage caused by digital transfer from analog...Bullshit...Both the purse and face are firm images in the original Wiegman celluloid as Davidson proved with his metadata that all the Murphy backers ignored...What you see in Davidson above is Sarah Stanton's right hand glowing in sun as she looks in to her purse...If we could get a family photo of Stanton you would see it would match even at this resolution...(In other words the better scan business is an excuse and we do have credible proof at this level of resolution that the Murphy people are deliberately ignoring)...

I have been persecuted by some very devious and uncredible persons posing as assassination website authorities for posting this correct evidence...The moderators in question obviously do not have the skill to evaluate my evidence so they sided with the popular 95% majority who believed the Murphy theory and removed me from their websites under false pretenses knowing they would get the approval of that 95% majority and would therefore be popular with their membership...The moderators in question do not want to admit a person who they attacked and disparaged with harassment and biased moderation turned around and disproved them with the best evidence on the issue...Lauren Johnson even went so far to claim that I wasn't being banned for my Prayer Man evidence...I was being banned for "repeated behavior" (with Lauren omitting describing that the behavior in question was my site rules-based protest that he was violating his own rules by not acknowledging our proof and punishing its issuer)...The 95% majority of site members I out-argued did not say a word when Lauren pulled that dishonest move...Gordon said I was "Indisciplined" and had insulted moderators and members (gee, I wonder how many people that could be applied to on the EF)...Gordon did not explain how the 3 people who proved the evidence against Murphy on the Education Forum all ended up banned? In any case that wasn't an accurate description because the record on the board shows that I posted a rebuttal to Stancak that went unanswered and soon found myself unable to post...When that happened in Dec 2016 I sent Gordon a PM asking why I had been banned and what rules warranted it? Gordon responded that he did not have to explain and any further inquiries might result in my permanent banning...He then banned me anyway...

In any case Stancak said he would reply and Gordon told him to take his time...Over a year later Stancak finally posted his advanced computer graphic...I have responded to that graphic on my Prayer Woman Facebook page...I also had Graves post my forensic evidence regarding that graphic showing Stancak had given Prayer Person legs that were over 2 inches longer than Frazier's...Instead of responding to my objective evidence Stancak said that we were just trying to get him to post his image so we could find things that were wrong with it (???) and that I was Sauron from Lord Of The Rings...Remember, Mr Gordon has posted that he is very sensitive to language and conduct...The main dutch Prayer Person advocate seems to be allowed to openly troll and flame (while publicly avoiding correct evidence)...

The JFK research community is run by gangs who corrupt moderators in order to ignore correct evidence and remove those who present it...They also make up false reasons for their removal which actually might be a civil law statutory crime and actionable...Jim DiEugenio is shameless...He avoids ever discussing the actual evidence and then sides with moderators against you...Not one Prayer Person advocate responded to my forensic evidence refuting Stancak's graphic...   

Also:   Stancak's overhead graphic (See Below) cheats and does not turn Prayer Person enough towards Frazier...It is inaccurate...Especially concerning the direction Prayer Person's face is looking...It does this by the trick of showing the straight angle of the portal while comparing it to Darnell's 20 degree angle...Frazier's face is also similarly not angled enough towards Prayer Person... Stancak does this deliberately because he is trying to avoid the obvious - that Prayer Person is facing and talking to Frazier and is therefore "Sarah" as Frazier testified...

       There's nothing stopping Andrej Stancak from joining this website and defending his work...Him and DiEugenio won't do that though because they stay in the safety and protection of censoring moderatorship where they don't have to answer the fatal flaws in their claims...

       Again, apparently I am not fit to post on the Education Forum but not one member there noticed that Stancak's sun/shadow plane was off by over a foot...If you look at Darnell it runs up the side of Frazier's body and turns 90 degrees at his collarbone...

(https://thejfktruthmatters.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/top_reduced.jpg?w=800)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 03, 2018, 07:51:18 PM



Also:   Stancak's overhead graphic (See Below) cheats and does not turn Prayer Person enough towards Frazier...It is inaccurate...Especially concerning the direction Prayer Person's face is looking...It does this by the trick of showing a straight angle of the portal while comparing it to Darnell's 20 degree angle...Frazier's face is also similarly not angled enough towards Prayer Person... Stancak does this deliberately because he is trying to avoid the obvious - that Prayer Person is facing and talking to
       Again, apparently I am not fit to post on the Education Forum but not one member there noticed that Stancak's sun/shadow plane was off by over a foot...If you look at Darnell it runs up the side of Frazier's body and turns 90 degrees at his collarbone...

(https://thejfktruthmatters.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/top_reduced.jpg?w=800)

The shadow on Frazier is caused by the horizontal shadow of the ceiling  line not by the vertical portal side.

As Frazier put it.

"Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I say, shadow from the roof there knocked the sun from out our eyes, you wouldn't have any glare in the eyes standing there. "

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 03, 2018, 08:53:12 PM
I'll withdraw the sun/shadow point for now until I can further examine it...(Though images like Hughes show what looks to be a shadow angle more in my favor)

I'd like Ray to answer the point about the foot on the step in Wiegman and how it is impossible in relation to human behavior and body movements when compared to the films...Specifically why did Stancak avoid doing a mannequin for his foot on the step theory in Wiegman? A correct analysis would involve ALL the evidence which would mean Stancak should replicate Prayer Person's movement in both Wiegman and Darnell dynamically and in relationship to their movements and also the movements seen in the films...

Also the point about Prayer Person's and Frazier's positions in Stancak's overhead image...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 03, 2018, 09:36:01 PM
Stancak is not being truthful in his claim to Graves that Frazier's location of Sarah was too vague to place any firm timing to...Just the opposite is true...Frazier said in both his 6th Floor Museum interview and Garrison Trial testimony when the woman ran up shouting in a low voice I turned to "Sarah" and asked what she had said?...Sarah told me she thought she said the president had been shot...Stancak is not being honest here because the Dunckel Clip establishes that Gloria Calvery is now confirmed to be at the base of the steps in the infamous video of Baker running to the steps...Just the opposite of vague we have a precise time period for this film clip of 25 to 29 seconds after the shots...

What Stancak is not honestly covering is the fact that Calvery was said to have ran shouting the president had been shot on the way to the point that she is seen in Darnell...That would mean that Frazier had already heard Calvery and had already turned to Sarah...When all of the evidence is properly analyzed we have very good reason to think Frazier is well in to the process of asking Sarah what Calvery had said in Darnell...

Stancak alleges that Prayer Person and Frazier are not talking to each other but are instead staring in to space in each other's general direction...But let's look at that a little deeper...The situation involved is just after shots have been fired at Kennedy and the Plaza is in a panic...Gloria Calvery has just completed her run and is at the steps...Lovelady & Shelley are off the steps and on the way up the Elm St extension...Is this honestly a point where people who are witnessing this would turn in each other's general direction and stare in silence or is it a point where witnesses would ask each other what was going on (as they testified)?...

Let's look at what Stancak has to ignore to reach this ridiculous conclusion...He has to ignore that both Jim DiEugenio and Bill Miller both independently noticed that Prayer Person had thick body features...In his Garrison testimony Frazier said Sarah was "heavy-set"...So is Frazier's description as vague as Stancak would like you to think?...

 Stancak's claim that Frazier turned all the way around to ask Sarah what Calvery said had occured after Darnell's clip had ended is way too late for the timing of Calvery running up to the steps...The image seen in Darnell is perfect timing for Calvery to have shouted on the way to the steps and Frazier just completing his inquiry to Sarah...In Frazier's 2013 6th Floor Museum interview he says Calvery spoke to Lovelady & Shelley BEFORE they left the steps...Darnell is 4 seconds AFTER they left the steps, so contrary to Stancak's false claim there is a very precise, razor sharp time established for Frazier's mention of Sarah... And why doesn't Stancak answer Graves' request to repost his isolated cartoon graphic of just Prayer Person and Frazier in the portal? What is Stancak afraid we will see? (Maybe an inseam on Prayer Person that is 2 inches longer than Frazier's?)
           
Stancak has Shelley on the steps but Shelley is seen walking up the Elm St extension in Dunckel...Nobody mentions this to Stancak on the Education Forum because truthful analysis of evidence is not the first agenda of the Murphy gang...This is more about hunting other members in banning lynchings...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 03, 2018, 09:53:24 PM
Thanks for folding Ray...

Hughes does seem to back my shadow angle...We could check out the sun angle on any Nov 22 because the outer portal is the same...

I understand you are running from the rest of my points in public because you can't answer them...The Prayer Person subject is the favorite topic of kooks and cranks and intellectual cowards...

To wit: Ray cannot answer my foot down on the step challenge in Wiegman because he knows I'm right...Stancak avoided a cartoon of Prayer Person in Wiegman with one foot on the step because he knew it looked ridiculous and did not match the seen image in Wiegman...In fact, knowing Stancak's methods, I would say he probably did do a cartoon graphic for Prayer Person in Wiegman and immediately saw it didn't work so he omitted it...He then comes out on the Education Forum and says he's developing a better model (ie the one he is currently using refuted him)...We'll wait another year for Stancak to answer this with Gordon's protection...And Jim DiEugenio's approval of the banning of those who debunked it...

Ray is running like an Olympic sprinter from my scientific proof above that Stancak cheated and fudged his Prayer Person cartoon to make it fit having a foot on the step...This is such condemning proof against Stancak that both Ray and Andrej are literally unable to respond to the direct arguments and evidence...Anyone can take a measuring tool and measure Prayer Person's inseam in the graphic above and see it is 2 inches longer than Frazier's - which would be impossible for a person who is 3.5 inches taller than Oswald...This is evidence that Stancak is a charlatan who cheats to make his bogus theories work and hopes no one will notice...He then actually gets away with posting that he refuses to answer this because "You are just trying to find things that are wrong to disprove me"...This is the level of intellectual/academic conduct that Gordon is OK with while claiming to be "sensitive to quality of content"...

Don't worry Ray...You won't have to give an honest answer because the  Education Forum moderators will protect you by banning the opposition...And they will use the words of the people who are openly refusing to answer good evidence to justify it...           
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 03, 2018, 11:21:38 PM

If you look at Willis 8 the reporter is on the first step down from the landing...If you superimpose Prayer Person in Wiegman in to Willis 8 you will see that if Prayer Person had one foot on the step like Stancak alleges then he would have to be illuminated by the same bright sun that is illuminating that reporter...This proves that Prayer Person is up on the landing in both Darnell and Wiegman because he never changes height...Make this argument on the Education Forum and James Gordon will ban you rather than make the Murphy gang answer this correct forensic evidence...

I don't think people realize I have debunked Stancak right here...Go to his overhead graphic and swing Prayer Person's shoulders around to be straightly aligned with the landing as they are in Wiegman...You will see that it would swing Prayer Person's entire left side into the bright sun according to Stancak's own model...Now you know why the charlatan Stancak avoided posting an image of Prayer Person in Wiegman...

Ray? You were saying?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 04, 2018, 12:09:02 PM
Thanks for folding Ray...


I haven't folded, Brian. Show us the angle of the sun that you are working on.

What angle would the shadow of the left side of the entrance make on the area on top of the steps, Albert?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 04, 2018, 01:54:34 PM
If you look at Willis 8 the reporter is on the first step down from the landing...If you superimpose Prayer Person in Wiegman in to Willis 8 you will see that if Prayer Person had one foot on the step like Stancak alleges then he would have to be illuminated by the same bright sun that is illuminating that reporter...This proves that Prayer Person is up on the landing in both Darnell and Wiegman because he never changes height...Make this argument on the Education Forum and James Gordon will ban you rather than make the Murphy gang answer this correct forensic evidence...

I don't think people realize I have debunked Stancak right here...Go to his overhead graphic and swing Prayer Person's shoulders around to be straightly aligned with the landing as they are in Wiegman...You will see that it would swing Prayer Person's entire left side into the bright sun according to Stancak's own model...Now you know why the charlatan Stancak avoided posting an image of Prayer Person in Wiegman...

Ray? You were saying?

I was saying that you are wrong over the shadow on Frazier. It is caused by the top of the entrance not by the left hand side which you are stating. Show me the  angle of the sun you are working on at 12.30 p.m. Brian.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 04, 2018, 04:26:32 PM
I haven't folded, Brian. Show us the angle of the sun that you are working on.
What angle would the shadow of the left side of the entrance make on the area on top of the steps, Albert?



This image shows a shadow from the west wall of the portal that PROVES my claim of where the shadow is on Frazier...I do not withdraw it - I re-assert it...

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MrCFGa5Bary KampEo/Vhl-T8jOPJI/AAAAAAAAmSc/Mjwz7NxVW04/s1600/Prayer-Man%2BWiegman%2Bcropped.jpg)

Ray, you are one of the unholy tide that plagues credible researchers known as the Murphy theorists...Even though this evidence proves I am correct and Stancak placed his shadow at least a foot too far west you will ignore it and you will refuse to change your ignorant Murphy beliefs...The Murphy theory can only exist where the opposition is censored and their evidence is ignored...Lovelady, in this linked image, was very close to the center rail...For the west wall shadow to shade Lovelady that way would mean that if it were properly drawn, according to what you see in Wiegman, it would be well east of where Stancak has it...This is proof that Stancak does not know what he is doing and is simply pulling serious components of the portal scene out of his ass and winging it...He is protected by Gordon who lies and accuses people falsely of site violations when he is really protecting his favorite members...He should be sued...Sorry Ray, but competent research involves more than the trolling you do...Andrej Stancak is a fool who accuses me of not being fit to post amongst credible researchers on the Education Forum but then runs in public from this refuting provable science when shown...Only losers use banning to hide from what they know they can't answer...Thank you Ray...Your idiotic inability to answer my inseam proof that proves Prayer Person was on the landing and was therefore too short to be Oswald wins this for me:               
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 04, 2018, 04:30:44 PM
Answer the question Brian. What angle do you believe the sun cast on the entrance of the TSBD at 12.30. Quite a simple question  to answer by a genius like yourself.

Or are you afraid to say?

Stancak based his rebuild on the Darnell photo shown here.

(https://s19.postimg.org/9q62xu2hb/Darnell.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/9q62xu2hb/)

Not the one you have linked above. Nice try.

Now answer the question.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 04, 2018, 04:47:03 PM
If you can't answer my question, Brian, I'll tell you the answer.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 04, 2018, 04:58:37 PM
Either you have no skill or more likely you have cognitive dissonance to the evidence I just showed you...If you open the link I provided it shows the Wiegman frame with the same shadow that runs up the side of Frazier in Darnell running up the side of Lovelady...This isn't difficult to understand Ray and I already explained it adequately in my last post...It is YOU who hasn't answered the question...My proof here shows that the shadow line I claimed on Frazier is as I described it...Murphy liars like yourself and Kamp see this evidence, know it refutes them, but then try to squirm out of it by demanding I show a graphic image of my claimed shadow...But why should I have to?...For anyone who is qualified enough to participate at this level they should know that a transit drawn from the edge of the west wall where the shadow starts that goes through Lovelady where the shadow visibly crosses his body will manifest exactly what I am describing...I've already proven my shadow line in the Wiegman image and you refuse to give an honest answer to it or acknowledge what anyone can see with their own eyes...


Sorry Ray but that ignoring my proof and trying to seize control by making demands isn't working and you still haven't answered the provable evidence...There is nothing dumber than a person who demands evidence, who then gets thoroughly smoked by the evidence he demands, who then ignores that evidence and returns with demanding the same evidence he has just been shown...That's troll-ville and I don't do troll-ville Ray...Have the sense to know when you've lost and when to shut up...You don't have to worry...You can use the DiEugenio method and stay quiet for the assured win with your favoring moderators banning the opposition and making up lies for the reason...

You claimed there was only a horizontal shadow on Frazier caused by the lintel in the portal...Wrong...You can see a vertical shadow on the side of both Frazier and Lovelady...Since we know Lovelady was over by the hand rail that means the sun/shade line is well over east of where Stancak has it...It is YOU who is not answering the proven evidence here or admitting what it shows as far as my Prayer Person claims...

(You are probably PM-ing with Stancak because your moronic challenge sounds exactly like one of his idiotic explanations)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 04, 2018, 05:04:58 PM
All your comments are just opinions. The one fact you can't change is the position of the sun at 12.30 on 22nd Nov 1963. And  you are too stupid to answer my question.

As I said Stancak based his build up on the Darnell photograph ~NOT the Weigman  you are quoting. Apples and Oranges, Brian

Go on have a go... tell me your what angle the sun is at 12.30 on the top of the steps.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 04, 2018, 05:10:11 PM
My comments are backed-up by firm photographic evidence you are ignoring and calling "opinions"...

Any look at the Wiegman frame I linked will show you can see the vertical shadow run up the right side of Lovelady's body...You are lying to get around evidence that refutes you...

You've proven the credibility of the Murphy mob here Ray...Thank you...

(You are probably PM-ing with Stancak because your challenge sounds exactly like one of his idiotic explanations)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 04, 2018, 05:23:21 PM
Here is the evidence showing a plainly visible shadow line running up the right side of Lovelady's body in Wiegman...This plainly visible shadow lies exactly where I claimed the same shadow line was on Frazier...

This proves that Ray's claim that there was only a horizontal shadow line on Frazier is provably wrong...The vertical shadow line seen on Lovelady has to be from the west wall of the portal...

This is photographic PROOF that Stancak has badly misdrawn the sun/shade line in his graphic and is therefore incompetent...Stancak has publicly stated on the Education Forum that I am an unacceptably insulting poster for suggesting he is an incompetent and that I am not fit to post amongst the credible researchers over there...However I have shown at least 2 cases of sheer incompetence here in his computer graphics that he said were "improved" and took a full year to produce...One, the shade line that is over a foot off and, two, the squared shoulders in Wiegman that he did not make a graphic for because his own model would have brought Prayer Person's left side in to bright sun as shown in his own overhead image (which he doesn't respond to when challenged and answers with the absurd response "You are only trying to find things that are wrong with it to discredit me")...               
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 04, 2018, 05:25:13 PM
Brian, wake up. Stancak base his postings on the Darnell photo I posted above NOT the Weigman photo you are mistakenly discussing.

As far as discussing anything with anybody else,  with your childish insults, you are once again showing why you have been banned from so many forums.

You can't even answer a simple sun angle question. 

Care to try it yet?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 04, 2018, 05:29:34 PM
Again Ray...You are making an extremely dumb point there because Wiegman is the exact same scene a few seconds earlier and therefore possesses the same shadow...

You seem to have difficulty comprehending what is being argued here...My point is that you have no right to demand we only look at the Darnell image because the Wiegman image is a credible comparison seeing how it is the exact same scene taken a few seconds earlier...
 
It is YOU who is not answering the question here and YOU have failed to answer why the Wiegman frame showing the same shadow line on Lovelady can't be used as a scientific comparison? In effect you are ignoring valid evidence and arguments and not answering for it...You are offering a fallacious argument...Just because Stancak used Darnell doesn't mean I can't refute it using Wiegman...Also, Stancak posted that he used a sun angle app to determine the shadow line...So you are not even right about that either...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 04, 2018, 05:38:48 PM

     Again Ray...You are making an extremely dumb point there because Wiegman is the exact same scene a few seconds earlier and therefore possesses the same shadow...


Maybe but we are discussing Stancak's posting not your ramblings.

Quote
           You seem to have difficulty comprehending what is being argued here...My point is that you have no right to demand we only look at the Darnell image because the Wiegman image is a credible comparison seeing how it is the exact same scene taken a few seconds earlier...


Why are you talking about Weigman, stupid? We are talking about the Darnell photo. the shadows on each are different. but then I wouldn't expect you to be able to see that.

 
Quote
          It is YOU who is not answering the question here and YOU have failed to answer why the Wiegman frame showing the same shadow line on Lovelady can't be used as a scientific comparison? In effect you are ignoring valid evidence and arguments and not answering for it...You are offering a fallacious argument...Just because Stancak used Darnell doesn't mean I can't refute it using Wiegman...Also, Stancak posted that he used a sun angle app to determine the shadow line...So you are not even right about that either...

You can't refute Stancak by using a different photo. You are just showing everybody how stupid you are.

As it happens Stancak has used the correct sun angle, but then if you disagree, tell us what you think the angle of the sun should be, or maybe people will think you are too stupid to answer,
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 04, 2018, 05:50:08 PM
    Duncan:     I do not understand...

That's the first sensible thing you've said on here, since your return. ;D

Tell us what you think the angle should be,  Brian.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 04, 2018, 06:03:20 PM
Sorry, I didn't know margin-keeping was a requirement...

Ray is obviously ignoring evidence so I am not going to answer him...

I have proven my case with Wiegman and Ray's responses are not credible...

Anyone qualified enough to participate will know I have already answered Ray's question in what I already wrote...The shadow angle is apparent from what is seen in Wiegman and Ray has not offered any credible reason for ignoring it...His Darnell-only argument should disqualify him from discussion because it would be rejected, objectively, in most assassination forums as invalid and frankly silly...Not to mention that Darnell also shows the same sun angle I am claiming that Stancak has misrepresented...

Stancak has refuted himself with his own model...There's no doubt Prayer Person has shoulders that are squared to the landing in Wiegman...Go to Stancak's overhead graphic and if Prayer Person is brought square to the landing in Wiegman then, by Stancak's own illustration, his shoulders would swing over in to the bright sun shown in that model...The reason Stancak did not do a computer graphic for Wiegman is because he realized he refuted himself...Stancak will not answer this which proves he cannot defend his own publicly-posted work without making false accusations against his correct critics...But as James Gordon said:  "Go on Andrej...Take your time"... lol

And don't forget Stancak is publicly ignoring my catching him making Prayer Person's inseam over 2 inches longer than Frazier's - which is impossible for a person who was 3.5 inches taller in height than Oswald...Still waiting for an answer on that... 

The point at which I was banned in December 2016 from the Education Forum was when I tried to show the Altgens image of Lovelady on the landing...The Prayer Person crew was trying to say Lovelady was on the step...I was trying to show that he was on the landing because you can compare his height as seen in Altgens with those behind him...One look at Altgens and it becomes quickly apparent that Lovelady is not the 7 inches shorter than the people next to him like the step would require...Gordon saw this coming and banned me without explanation before I could refute his favorite posters whose seriously flawed evidence he failed to detect...Gordon describes all this business as "guarding quality of content" and the Education Forum membership cowars underneath it knowing the whole time it is bully moderation with an agenda other than what is officially claimed...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 04, 2018, 06:31:41 PM
Sorry, I didn't know margin-keeping was a requirement...

Ray is obviously ignoring evidence so I am not going to answer him...

I have proven my case with Wiegman and Ray's responses are not credible...

Anyone qualified enough to participate will know I have already answered Ray's question in what I already wrote...The shadow angle is apparent from what is seen in Wiegman and Ray has not offered any credible reason for ignoring it...His Darnell-only argument should disqualify him from discussion because it would be rejected, objectively, in most assassination forums as invalid and frankly silly...Not to mention that Darnell also shows the same sun angle I am claiming that Stancak has misrepresented...

Stancak has refuted himself with his own model...There's no doubt Prayer Person has shoulders that are squared to the landing in Wiegman...Go to Stancak's overhead graphic and if Prayer Person is brought square to the landing in Wiegman then, by Stancak's own illustration, his shoulders would swing over in to the bright sun shown in that model...The reason Stancak did not do a computer graphic for Wiegman is because he realized he refuted himself...Stancak will not answer this which proves he cannot defend his own publicly-posted work without making false accusations against his correct critics...But as James Gordon said:  "Go on Andrej...Take your time"... lol

And don't forget Stancak is publicly ignoring my catching him making Prayer Person's inseam over 2 inches longer than Frazier's - which is impossible for a person who was 3.5 inches taller in height than Oswald...Still waiting for an answer on that...

Brian has shown that he is incapable of showing the angle of the sun shining on the top of the TSBD steps. Yet he continues to state that Stancak is incorrect in his presentations. As he has shown in the past, Brian is completely incompetent. and his future postings should be viewed with that in mind.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 04, 2018, 07:00:37 PM


Ray:   Evidence is a double-edged sword and you are also equally required to show where you think the shadows that are clearly seen on Lovelady's body in Wiegman fall in the portal...


We both know that clearly seen shadow on Lovelady's right side seen in my link PROVES 1) That the shadow is from the west wall and not the lintel only like you falsely claimed...2) And that it PROVES the shadow turns 90 degrees on Frazier's collarbone in Darnell after running up his right side too...

This PROVES Stancak has radically misdrawn his shadow line in his computer graphic and incompetency is not the outrageous accusation he dramatizes but is instead backed by the facts...Stancak has yet to answer this after being protected by Gordon's moderation...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 04, 2018, 07:12:17 PM

Ray:   Evidence is a double-edged sword and you are also equally required to show where you think the shadows that are clearly seen on Lovelady's body in Wiegman fall in the portal...


We both know that clearly seen shadow on Lovelady's right side seen in my link PROVES 1) That the shadow is from the west wall and not the lintel only like you falsely claimed...2) And that it PROVES the shadow turns 90 degrees on Frazier's collarbone in Darnell after running up his right side too...

This PROVES Stancak has radically misdrawn his shadow line in his computer graphic and incompetency is not the outrageous accusation he dramatizes but is instead backed by the facts...Stancak has yet to answer this after being protected by Gordon's moderation...

Your waffle is useless, Brian. He doesn't need Gordon's moderation as you are unable to show why he is wrong on here, and you have had plenty of opportunity but you seem incapable.. You can't accuse Stancak of anything if you can't show him he's wrong. Tell me what the angle of the sun on the steps  was at 12.30 on 22nd. If you can't, just admit it and I'll show you the answer.

Don't go running to Duncan asking for his help. Be a man. Grow a pair.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 04, 2018, 08:19:49 PM
The best way to describe the sun angle on Nov 22nd in Dealey Plaza are the images I showed that physically show that sun angle on the persons in question...This is the best representation of that angle and it can't be answered by ignoring it or offering inferior arguments of evidence (or trolling)...

 A competent analyst who examines the Wiegman frames I presented will see they adequately exhibit a shadow plane in the portal that goes from the edge of the west portal wall over to Lovelady...Lovelady is leaning against the center railing in Wiegman and is visibly seen by the portal dimensions to be near the middle of the portal...That means any shadow line from the west wall that falls on him is well towards the center of the portal...If we then go to Stancak's overhead graphic we can see he has drawn his shadow border well to the west side of the portal and far away from where we see it fall in Wiegman...

Ray is telling a non-truth here and my argument is correct by any normal standard of academic vetting of evidence and Ray's obvious dishonesty is not...

Jim D will come in and say "Good job Ray"...

Frazier and Prayer Person are also turned towards each other more than Stancak has shown in his computer graphic...


(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 04, 2018, 09:45:16 PM
Admit it Brian, you haven't  clue how to work out the angle of the sun. Now get back in bed and try to work out how to do it.

I'm off for now. I'll be back tomorrow to see if you have tried to work it out, but I don't expect much change.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 05, 2018, 09:48:38 AM
The best way to describe the sun angle on Nov 22nd in Dealey Plaza are the images I showed that physically show that sun angle on the persons in question...This is the best representation of that angle and it can't be answered by ignoring it or offering inferior arguments of evidence (or trolling)...

 A competent analyst who examines the Wiegman frames I presented ....(snip)

Once again wake up and smell the coffee, Brian. We are discussing the Darnell photo, NOT  any by Wiegman.

this one.(https://s19.postimg.org/9q62xu2hb/Darnell.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/9q62xu2hb/)
Quote
Ray is telling a non-truth here and my argument is correct by any normal standard of academic vetting of evidence and Ray's obvious dishonesty is not...

"Normal standard of academic vetting"  from a guy who can't even tell me what angle of the sun he is working to. ROTFLMAO


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 05, 2018, 04:32:01 PM

 Ray has to run from the Wiegman evidence where a shadow is plainly visible going up Lovelady's side...Lovelady is in the middle of the portal leaning against the railing as seen in Altgens...


 This is not only proof that Stancak doesn't know what he is doing and posts a shadow line that is off by over a foot but it also proves that the Murphy crazies deliberately ignore evidence and personally attack people to get around it...Having dirty moderators in your corner is vastly beneficial to Murphy trolls and persons who lie about evidence...


If you look at Stancak's overhead graphic and then look at Wiegman Prayer Man has his shoulders squared to the landing in Wiegman...Go to Stancak's overhead graphic and rotate Prayer Man's body to make his shoulders squared to the landing...If you bring the left side of Prayer Man's body forward to square his shoulders the sun will illuminate his entire left side according to Stancak's sun plane...This is further real-time evidenced by Willis-8 where the reporter  is standing near the same spot on the step and has his entire body illuminated...The right side of the reporter lines up with the left side of Prayer Man in Wiegman so both these examples prove if Prayer Man were on the step he would have at least a part of his left side in bright sun...


It pays to have Gordon openly censoring and keeping this correct evidence that Debra Conway agreed with from your board while making up phony moderation excuses for what is basically cowardly advantage-taking and a dirty playing field controlled by a power-abuser who isn't really interested in the truth he calls for...That goes for Lauren Johnson too who is just DiEugenio's piss boy...If anyone wants to file a lawsuit against Gordon and Education Forum I'd be very glad to help...The way the Murphy-ites play the game is to get dirty moderators to remove you and then use that as an excuse to ignore your entire evidence...This is how a dirty 95% majority plays the game and fails to confront a bully moderator who they know isn't fit to moderate but go along in silence and knuckle under to his intimidation using myself as an example for what happens to those who dare confront him...


What's  the matter Ray...Afraid to confront something that you know refutes you?


              https://www.google.com/search?q=Wiegman+Prayer+Man+JFK&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjooJ-ElaHaAhWPulMKHQGRAYsQ_AUICigB&biw=2282&bih=1176#imgrc=oCWWT_ZciFlJbM:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 05, 2018, 05:14:51 PM
Ray has to run from the Wiegman evidence where a shadow is plainly visible going up Lovelady's side...Lovelady is in the middle of the portal leaning against the railing as seen in Altgens...

Not the Weigman photo, stupid, the Darnell photo
(https://s19.postimg.org/9q62xu2hb/Darnell.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/9q62xu2hb/)

Quote
This is not only proof that Stancak doesn't know what he is doing and posts a shadow line that is off by over a foot but it also proves that the Murphy crazies deliberately ignore evidence and personally attack people to get around it...Having dirty moderators in your corner is vastly beneficial to Murphy trolls and persons who lie about evidence...

If you say he is out by over a foot, please shows your sun angle.

Quote




If you look at Stancak's overhead graphic and then look at Wiegman Prayer Man has his shoulders squared to the landing in Wiegman...Go to Stancak's overhead graphic and rotate Prayer Man's body to make his shoulders squared to the landing...If you bring the left side of Prayer Man's body forward to square his shoulders the sun will illuminate his entire left side according to Stancak's sun plane...This is further real-time evidenced by Willis-8 where the reporter  is standing near the same spot on the step and has his entire body illuminated...The right side of the reporter lines up with the left side of Prayer Man in Wiegman so both these examples prove if Prayer Man were on the step he would have at least a part of his left side in bright sun...

It pays to have Gordon openly censoring and keeping this correct evidence that Debra Conway agreed with from your board while making up phony moderation excuses for what is basically cowardly advantage-taking and a dirty playing field controlled by a power-abuser who isn't really interested in the truth he calls for...That goes for Lauren Johnson too who is just DiEugenio's piss boy...If anyone wants to file a lawsuit against Gordon and Education Forum I'd be very glad to help...The way the Murphy-ites play the game is to get dirty moderators to remove you and then use that as an excuse to ignore your entire evidence...This is how a dirty 95% majority plays the game and fails to confront a bully moderator who they know isn't fit to moderate but go along in silence and knuckle under to his intimidation using myself as an example for what happens to those who dare confront him...
The ramblings of a madman.

Quote
What's  the matter Ray...Afraid to confront something that you know refutes you?


              https://www.google.com/search?q=Wiegman+Prayer+Man+JFK&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjooJ-ElaHaAhWPulMKHQGRAYsQ_AUICigB&biw=2282&bih=1176#imgrc=oCWWT_ZciFlJbM:

You really are proving that you are stupid, Brian. Why do you insist in talking about Weigman's photos,  when Stancak's presentation is about the Darnell photo?

(https://s19.postimg.org/9q62xu2hb/Darnell.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/9q62xu2hb/)

What's the matter., Brian. Can't answer a simple question?

It's like talking to a two year old child.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 05, 2018, 05:48:42 PM
Brian, no other evidence from that time shows anyone stood close to BL's position in Wiegman being hit by a shadow, that has to be considered too. Check the Murray images that show that reporter you mentioned before, there's a set of three taken within perhaps 30 seconds of each other where he's in that position on the steps(which seems to me to be slightly west of BL in the Wfilm), you can find them online in a gallery but not here. In the first two he's not being hit by shadow at all but in the last you can see it on his back, that is the true shadow line coming of the west wall 20-30m later. In the Cook film Youtube vid with Trask as well, two men in light colored shirts walk up the steps just west of the railing, at no time does shadow touch them, so what is it we are seeing on Lovelady? Could it be a combination of the film, the camera, the shirt and the portal making it hard for Weigman to reveal the true shadow line? I mean it's not hard to see how his film makes shadow much darker than it really was, even on the car in front of him the shadow being cast by the fins on the back of it, they are pitch black, that may be a major factor. Obviously I'm no expert and you'd probably need to consult one to be convinced but this is a fact... Wiegman is alone in putting shadow on anyone in that position and all other evidence rufutes it, so it's probably  a freak, an anomily and there is no reason to rely on it when everything else tells us something else. Search for that Murray gallery, check out the set of 3 images with the reporter and you'll find that anyone stood to his west 20m before  would be in full shadow if on the top step or landing, again the third image of three shows the shadow on his back and he was clearly closer to BL Wfilm position than he was to PM. Welcome back.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 05, 2018, 05:55:06 PM


Barry:


I am desperate to link your GIF of all film images of Prayer Man in the portal...It disappeared when Duncan zapped the thread...It is vital, critical evidence that proves Prayer Man was on the landing the whole time with both feet...Anyone who views the movements in your GIF will see that they could not be done with one foot on the step...


Could you PLEASE repost it?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 05, 2018, 06:00:22 PM
Barry:   Let's grant your claim here...Look at this...I think you can see the shadow line on that reporter's back and it is still well east of Stancak's...


(Don't forget this photo is minus 4 degrees and Wiegman is approximately at a 32 degree angle)

The reporter's right arm is probably on the hand rail...May I suggest Barry, that the shadow seen on the reporter's back in Murray tells us where Lovelady is located and is the same shadow?


https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=2282&bih=1176&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=UFXGWq7fC5KJ5wLO44zIAQ&q=Murray+Depository+Steps+JFK&oq=Murray+Depository+Steps+JFK&gs_l=psy-ab.12...5354.10967.0.13616.5.5.0.0.0.0.52.241.5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.Qxz2eSQK9jA#imgrc=UwSryETrRUz4aM:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 05, 2018, 06:41:29 PM
Sadly Brian, the machine I was on before isn't booting up anymore so I can't repost it, on a good note though, as I mentioned to you that wasn't actually my gif, I copied it from (I think) one of the two PM threads on the ED, so it could be still there, it's most likely one of Chris Davidson's. On that issue let me point something out to you, "they" might argue that if he's on the top step in Weigman, then putting a foot up on the landing wouldn't actually make him seem taller to Darnell at all. Related to that, think about how many people have considered him to be way back on the landing near the glass, well Robin Unger posted something that showed he cannot be, because we would see more of the west wall, what Robin posted convinced people paying attention that PM has to be right at the edge of the landing or over it, yet and this shows you how awkward a thing this is to work out visually, even after posting that Robin himself in a comment in late 2017 still considered that he might be back there in the corner. My only point is, it's decieving, he looks further back than he is, so he could look shorter than he is, he could be on the top step, I don't think so but I just really don't know.  One more thing, both Ray and I have had PM threads deleted after bickering with you, so bite your lip, count to ten or go warm some milk and let's all request threads be locked and not deleted because of what a pain it is. Finally we have to teach ypou how to upload your own stuff that you've saved to your HD, you do save images don't you?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 05, 2018, 07:19:41 PM
Barry:   Let's grant your claim here...Look at this...I think you can see the shadow line on that reporter's back and it is still well east of Stancak's...


(Don't forget this photo is minus 4 degrees and Wiegman is approximately at a 32 degree angle)

The reporter's right arm is probably on the hand rail...May I suggest Barry, that the shadow seen on the reporter's back in Murray tells us where Lovelady is located and is the same shadow?


https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=2282&bih=1176&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=UFXGWq7fC5KJ5wLO44zIAQ&q=Murray+Depository+Steps+JFK&oq=Murray+Depository+Steps+JFK&gs_l=psy-ab.12...5354.10967.0.13616.5.5.0.0.0.0.52.241.5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.Qxz2eSQK9jA#imgrc=UwSryETrRUz4aM:
I think it's actually a better explaination than what I offered, Wiegman may boost shadows but making them out of nothing... (well it was better than no explaination at all)? The only other option is that it came from above but if the reporter is still on the top step then that's impossible, wouldn't that be correct Ray? You'd have to be on the landing like Shelley was for it to just to shield your eyes. If you want to chreck it out it's the second image in Brian's link, open that and look for the set of 3 entrance images, it's the last one.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 05, 2018, 07:55:51 PM
Barry:   I'm not sure you are up to speed on what is being said here...The GIF you posted made it clear that when Prayer Person pivoted from Wiegman to Darnell that the body motions seen in that GIF precluded any foot being on the step...The only reason Andrej Stancak is trying to show Prayer Person had a foot on the step is because he is aware that Prayer Person is obviously too short to be Oswald if he is standing on the landing...Stancak has said so in plain words himself...Because I have been censored from the Murphy-hijacked Education and Deep Politics forums the membership there has been allowed to forget that I established that Prayer Person was up front on the landing due to my triangulation science and height argument...This situation has been forced by me and my good evidence...Even though the community is now trying to ignore me their evidence and the reasons for it show that they are very much recognizing what I am showing...

Unger doesn't ever mention my evidence...The glowing object that Murphy theorists are saying is either a coffee cup or camera lens is actually just Sarah Stanton's right hand glowing on the edge of the sun/shade plane...Just because the other side ridicules this and ignores it doesn't mean it isn't true...The previous threads showed evidence that you could see the knuckles and slits between the fingers on the glowing object...It is Sarah's hand and experts will confirm what I have been saying all along and the opposition has been uncredibly disallowing...


Andrej Stancak may not openly admit it but the part of his model that shows the light on Sarah's hand and her position at the front of the landing is something he directly lifted from me without crediting me for it...His citation of the aluminum window frame is something I first discovered in my triangulation height argument...Stancak is correct on that but he deceptively tries to parlay it in to getting Prayer Person's foot on the step to account for his obvious lack of height...


Barry:  If you view what I wrote about Stancak omitting a graphic for Wiegman and why you'll see I caught him refuting himself and omitting it from his material...What I am trying to say is Stancak is knowingly showing material he knows to be false to the public and deliberately omits things where he knows he refuted himself when he applied his theory to the graphic representations he created...  Also: Look at my analysis of Stancak's graphic of just Frazier and Prayer Person...I caught Stancak making a leg for Prayer Person that was 2.5 inches longer than Frazier's - which is impossible because Frazier was 3.5 inches taller than Oswald...I think Stancak saw that his leg didn't fit so he tweaked it and then told people he was using new software...A fraud in other words...When Graves called him out on this Stancak refused to defend his work...(Couldn't defend the fatal flaws in his graphics)...Nobody on the Education Forum asks Stancak why he didn't do a graphic for Wiegman? When Gordon is queried on this he switches the topic and defames me as being a person who insults others...I think we know who is offering the insult here...These charlatans are trying to use false accusations of being insulting to avoid answering my correct evidence...You can see the real purpose of the banning...

As far as Prayer Man looking shorter, that's a moot point because Frazier and Prayer Person are at a depth separation that is negligible...Drew Phipps calculated through trigonometry that even if Prayer Person and Frazier were at the full 4 feet in depth separation that the most perspective could cause in height is 1/5th of an inch...Not enough to affect the 7 inch height difference between Frazier & Prayer Person...A 4 foot depth separation at 75 feet is not enough to cause any significant perspective distortion...Kamp and Josephs try to obstruct and demand we come up with the precise focal length of Darnell's lens and full Einsteinian minutiae of our claim but it is correct as stands and they haven't disproven it...Frazier & Prayer Person can be directly compared in height in Darnell and both are standing on the landing...Prayer Person is simply too short to be Oswald...You'll find those who back Murphy all have something negative to say about me but they haven't credibly responded to my evidence...I would say Frazier and Prayer Person have no more than a 12 inch depth separation between them as even Stancak's model shows...

The shadow is seen on the reporter's back...It shows a shadow border that is well east of what Stancak is showing...Look at the edge of the step just beneath the reporter in that Murray photo and I think you can just make out the shadow border on the window frame...

Dare I say Barry - I think Wiegman does show the correct shadow line on Lovelady and it proves my point...


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 06, 2018, 08:22:17 AM

Dare I say Barry - I think Wiegman does show the correct shadow line on Lovelady and it proves my point...

On what angle of the sun on steps ("the correct shadow line") is your point based , Brian?

If you don't answer, we know the you are incapable of saying and further discussion is futile.

I look forward to your answer.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 06, 2018, 04:54:09 PM
Brian, how can PM's hand be in direct sunlight if Lovelady and that reporter are partially shaded?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 06, 2018, 04:57:19 PM
Barry:   The shadow line on Lovelady is accurate...No credible argument has been made to show why the shadow that visibly shades Lovelady's right side isn't a real indication of the shadow line in the portal...James Gordon tells Andrej to take his time while he bans me for no reason...Stancak comes back over a year later and shoots himself in the foot with major components of the graphic being way off inaccuracy...What does that tell you, by objective definitions, about the credibility and competency of JFK research websites and their oversight? If those sites are full of people who are honestly tolerant and accept mistakes and don't like to be "insulted" then why don't they go out and look at my correct information here and respond to it like credible objective researchers would do if they were sincerely looking for the truth? Why is provably wrong information protected on those websites?

Stancak has also misdrawn the positions of Frazier and Prayer Person in his overhead graphic...He has them staring in to space, but the real Darnell image shows them looking directly at each other...Prayer Person is not nearly turned enough towards Frazier in Stancak's cartoon like he really is in Darnell...Stancak did this on purpose in order to get around the fact Frazier was looking at and talking to "Sarah" as he said in his 6th Floor Museum interview...James Gordon is a liar...When he banned me in 2016 all I was doing was arguing my evidence...He saw I was getting the upper hand on his favorite Prayer Person posters so he banned me...When I asked in PM's why I was banned he said he did not have to explain and any further inquiry might result in my permanent banning...He then banned me anyway...That "indisciplined" and "insulting" is BS he made up after the fact...Meanwhile he ignores that he banned the person who proved the truth against a 95% majority...He also ignores the fact Debra Conway revoked her Lancer award to Kamp because of the evidence I sent her calling it "a mistake"...

It is time to get rid of the real problem here...Time to boot Gordon and L Johnson as the frauds and incompetents they are who favor cranks at the expense of credible assassination research...DiEugenio needs to be put on some kind of probation...If he ignores good evidence he has to be punished for it...Ganging up with cronies is not going to get him around that...
   
DiEugenio on the Education Forum last night:     "Prayer Man is definitely not Sarah Stanton"...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 06, 2018, 09:34:09 PM
Brian, how can PM's hand be in direct sunlight if Lovelady and that reporter are partially shaded?
It's not...Drew Phipps applied a light sensing app to the Wiegman and Darnell images and found light percentages on the glowing parts of Prayer Person of around 60% to 80% of direct sunlight...Phipps quit DPF out of disgust with the moderation...He told me himself in a phone call...

That means Prayer Person has the light reflective face of her hand close enough to the sun/shade border that it illuminates but not to the degree of a directly lit hand...This might be the matter of a few inches but it tells you precisely where Stanton is...To Stancak's credit he is the only one of the Murphy theorists to correctly enter my height analysis particulars in his evidence...Only he got some things seriously wrong like the shadow plane and Prayer Person's foot being on the step...

In my review lately I found an interesting thing...In Wiegman you can see Prayer Person's forearm area near the elbow illuminated as well as her hand...The mid part of the forearm is not illuminated because Stanton's purse is jutting in to it...When I posted this I got ridiculed by the Murphy crazies but the truth is it is exactly accurate and will be confirmed by experts...You can also see the purse in the Davidson image Duncan posted in reply #5 on page 1... 

In any case there can be no doubt the shadow is seen on Lovelady's right 1/3rd...If you have a grasp of the sun plane Prayer Person is sticking her arms forward with her purse in her hands and is therefore coming close to the sun/shade border...That border itself transects Lovelady's right side...Does Prayer Person's lit hand make the clearly-seen shadow on Lovelady go away? A good detective always follows the evidence and not the excuses...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 07, 2018, 09:32:39 PM
  There's a silly discussion going on right now on the EF about why Oswald would be allowed to go stand out on the steps if he was being framed as the Lone Nut shooter...The Murphy zealots are saying it didn't matter if Oswald was seen in films because a greater conspiracy was being hatched where the Russians and Cubans were being implicated and therefore Oswald could still be a part of it and still be filmed outside on the steps...What BS!

These Murphy zealots forget that Oswald maintained cover at the police station and therefore showed signs of obeying orders to the bitter end...The same orders that placed him in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room and out of the way during the shots...In that silly discussion the Murphy-ites forget to mention Carolyn Arnold's witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room at 12:25...Oswald was so obedient to orders that he stayed on the lunch room side of the vestibule window when he heard Truly shouting for the elevator and got up to see what was going on...

Larsen forgets that there's lots of evidence out there to show Oswald was being framed as the shooter on the 6th floor...There's Oswald doubles asking if Kennedy could be shot from a high building...There's a paper sack in the mail...There's Oswald being framed as a dangerous shooter in the Walker case...There's CIA Ruth Paine getting him a job at the Depository...There's evidence that the Carcano was manipulated from the warehouse order long before the assassination...

Sandy says Johnson changed the Russia and Cuba plan after the assassination to the Lone Nut plan...But that isn't true if Oswald was supposed to be killed...That was long before Johnson had any control over the plot...So that means during the time of Oswald allegedly being on the steps the Lone Gunman plan was already on and therefore it was imperative that Oswald would not be seen anywhere that would exonerate him...Larsen's being silly...The conspiracy shows intense planning long before the assassination and control by Intel powers that would not do something as stupid as allow the patsy to blow the plot by wandering outside on the the front steps...The people who blow off all the evidence to show why this is true are the same types who would ignore the clear face of Sarah Stanton shown in the Davidson enhancement and still hope their wishful equivocations would work...

 Where do you get these people? The evidence shows Oswald was being set-up as a shooter in multiple witnessings...A shooter can't be seen on the front steps and such a complex plot would not allow him to be...Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room where Carolyn Arnold and Baker & Truly saw him...

If Oswald was filmed outside would the plotters have allowed Baker & Truly to fabricate a false story about the 2nd Floor Lunch Room and then get caught?

The Murphy crazies are saying Oswald had every chance in the world to say at the Press Conference I was outside on the front steps during the shots but didn't...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 08, 2018, 04:57:18 PM
The reason Andeaj is ignoring the shadow on Lovelady must be because he doesn't trust it. It doesn't seem to gel with what Ray was referring you to and other images of the steps that show the shadow line after the assassination, so hasn't he explained why he dismissed it? Has anyone?

As for the odd PM stance in his mock up, it's clearly not right but that doesn't mean a man cannot put his foot on the step in a more natural and comfortable fashion, that reporter had no issues doing it but you might note that his leg his rather well bent but he might be only 5'5 IDK(can't find the image where we see this but it's most likely an Allen or Murray). In Duncan's first post there's a mistake or typo, he wrote that PM's height was calculated by John Mytton to be 5'3 if "he was stood on the top step", that's incorrect, it should read 5'3 if he was on the landing, if he was on the top step he would be around 5'9. That's the problem, you can't prove he's not on the top step much like you cannot prove it's a woman.

I don't see why(playing DA) why he can't be facing the street in Wiegman and on the top step and then as someone approaches the bottom of the steps to come inside, he can't turn sideways to give them room and in doing so put one foot on the landing. My only question is, does that mean he's on the same step as Lovelady at one point and doesn't that create a problem visually? Did we conclude previously Brian, that BL moves up to the top step in Wiegman or not? IDR.

The "evidence" suggesting he is female is as nothing compared to those dozen or so frames of Darnell when seen in motion that tell me it's a man. Sorry and I've gone over this before but the so called enhancements have shown me nothing new, that is, nothing trustworthy, the only thing I'm actully quite sure of is that it's a male. That's because of the superior evidence of Darnell in motion and "stabilized", there's no question in my mind and I'll not refer to it again, the handbag, the buttons, the fingers you mentioned and that monster of a face with the massive forehead, they're simply not credible.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2018, 06:23:07 PM
I am also dismayed that you refer to Ray as a credible source...In my opinion Ray has ignored enough proven evidence to dismiss himself from arguing amongst serious posters...


Brian,

Aren't you an Armstrongite? And you're accusing Ray of ignoring evidence?  ???
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 09, 2018, 09:41:49 PM
Thanks for the full response Brian, haven't read it fully yet but just reacting to one quick thing, there is an image that shows that reporter with his leg bent, Murray or Allen came first to mind but it might be from another, I know it's a still, it's out there and if you haven't seen it then you might be surprised by how much he had to bend his knee but as I mentioned he could be a short man. The shape of Andreaj's awkward leg is being dictated by what he sees in Darnell, he thinks he is seeing the true shape of it there so that's what he drew in.

Also was this the gif you were after? It's one of Joseph's.
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

Another from him that might help picture where Lovelady moved to and if he should or shouldn't be hit by shadow.
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_06/5939df0cb7964_HughesimageofLoveladyorOswaldinWestcornerwithPMoverlay.jpg.1cbfc86a144db11cf5a2c2745690717e.jpg)
Visually, he shouldn't be in deep shadow like that and I can't put the shadow on that reporter in the same position, I'll keep an open mind though Brain that's all I can do atm.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 09, 2018, 10:06:49 PM
Chris Davidson did indeed do an enhancement of PM's face in Weigman and yes he did say it looks like a woman but it looks nothing like what has convinced you and if I see it on my travels I'll post it, one thing I remember about it Brian, it had "eyebrows" , if you saw it yourself you may even prefer it, if I had to choose between them I know I would and I also know it would look more like Stanton than what we see in this thread.  The features highlighted by Duncan came about "by chance" but when he when out of his way to draw out a face from Wiegman for himself Davidson found something completely different and if you can find one quote from him where he said he likes the face that Duncan found I'll take it all back and never mention it again. Did you even see it? It's a completely different" face".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 10, 2018, 05:46:37 AM
Mmm hm...

The points are there and they are backed by serious fact...Let me know when you can answer them please...Otherwise I'll assume you are avoiding what you know you can't answer...

You seem to have a very loose grasp of what is being argued here...The Davidson enhancement of Wiegman is the very last image in Duncan's first post...It clearly shows the face of a woman...When I first posted it to the Education Forum every single ROKC member who commented agreed it looked like a woman...While the image is of poor resolution, on a scientific level it has more than enough valid data at its present resolution to confirm that the face is female and therefore refutes the Murphy theory...After showing this issue-ending evidence I was banned without reason by moderator Gordon...Your wording shows a complete lack of comprehension of the issue...Davidson found the woman's face by accident when he was trying to clarify Wiegman for a height analysis of Lovelady...That face is shown in Duncan's original post in this thread...

The GIF I was looking for was a stabilized collection of all the frames in both Wiegman and Darnell combined that showed all available images of PM...The reason it was important is because when you juxtaposed the movements in both Wiegman and Darnell in the same continuous GIF it made it more than clear that the pivot PM takes from facing forward in Wiegman to facing Frazier in Darnell could not have been done with a foot on the step...There are people who could produce it but like the cheaters who deleted my Wiegman GIF in this thread from Google Images they won't help you...

You can't use Altgens because it blocks the angle in question...Lovelady is leaning way forward in Altgens so it can't be used in comparison nor can it be used to dismiss the shadow on Lovelady in Wiegman...

The shadow is the west wall of the portal because there is nothing to Lovelady's right in Wiegman...I don't know how rules have anything to do with this....I'm just pointing out correct evidence...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 10, 2018, 06:21:27 PM
     If you want to see a really good example of how crooked/incompetent moderators help someone conduct deceit go look at the current Prayer Man thread on the Education Forum...Thomas Graves called out Stancak and Stancak finally responded in the thread...Right off the bat Stancak lies and patronizes Graves by saying Prayer Man and Frazier are not facing each other...Stancak does this because he knows we have finally debunked the Prayer Man theory he proffers with our Stanton evidence...Stancak is a charlatan who, when he is shown evidence that threatens his Prayer Man theory, tweaks his graphics away from what threatens him...He did that with Prayer Man's leg that he made over 2 inches longer than Frazier's and now he is doing it again with the direction Prayer Man and Frazier are facing...All one has to do is look at Stancak's overhead graphic and the direction he has Prayer Man and Frazier facing and then look at Couch/Darnell to see the actual direction they are facing that Stancak has badly misrepresented...And no one on the Education Forum, including the moderators, notices these serious flaws in what Stancak is trying to get away with...Graves is less familiar with the material so I forgive him, however he made a serious mistake in not nailing Stancak on this when Stancak gave him the opportunity...Any look at Darnell shows Prayer Man and Frazier are about 25 degrees offset or less and Stancak has them at 90 degrees offset in his graphic...

Graves failed to point-out to Stancak that, counter to what he so dishonestly alleges, there is good evidence in Frazier's 6th Floor Museum statement to determine exactly when Frazier spoke to "Sarah"...If Stancak had paid better attention to the quote he cited he would have noticed that Frazier specifically said Shelley & Lovelady spoke to the crying woman (Calvery) "BEFORE" they left the steps...Stancak is very careful to ignore this part of the quote because it refutes what he alleges...The Couch/Darnell clip starts about 4 seconds after Shelley & Lovelady left the steps...Therefore a competent researcher would realize Calvery had just completed her run in Darnell and Frazier would be in the process of consulting "Sarah" on what she said...Frazier is very specific in the quote Stancak cites that he asked Sarah what Calvery had said...If Stancak were honest he would admit that Frazier would not have delayed asking Sarah what Calvery had said, so since Calvery has already finished her run by the time of Darnell we can assume Frazier is in the process of asking Sarah in the infamous Darnell frame...Stancak ignores human behavior and refuses to process that a person who sees a hysterical person shouting the president has been shot is not going to delay asking what she said...Anyone with any common sense would realize Stancak is aware of all this and that is why he strategically ignores this critical information and alters his graphics to accommodate it...Of course the brainless Kathy Beckett misses all this and chides Graves for not paying attention...And she's a moderator!...Typical of Stancak, while condescending to us and bombastically refusing to further respond he doesn't realize his own material refutes his claim...We do know enough, and Stancak is deliberately ignoring the evidence why...The timing is not loose at all...It is as tight as it can be...Gordon guards his favorite posters and his own ignorance with censorship but he does so at the expense of the credibility of his board and misleading of the community...

Next: Stancak simply ignores the question why he didn't reproduce the Wiegman scene in his cartoon graphics? If you read my previous posts Stancak avoided making a graphic for Wiegman because it refuted his Prayer Man garbage...He knew it disproved his thesis so he skipped it and no one on the Education Forum minded or even noticed...

Stancak doesn't come over here to debate because he knows he'll have his behind handed to him if he dares...

 

Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 11, 2018, 05:29:51 PM
     There's some kind of defamation campaign going on against me on the Education Forum where noodnicks like Vanessa Lonney are allowed to come in and accuse me of intolerable behavior and deserving to be universally banned from all assassination forums...I've never debated Lonney directly but I'm sure Duncan would welcome her to come over here to debate any evidence she has directly...Lonney claimed I had been discredited and was therefore old news not deserving reinstatement on the Education Forum...Funny, I don't seem to remember that discrediting, nor do I remember Lonney ever taking me on directly where she might actually have to prove that discrediting...Especially on the Education Forum where moderators like Mark Knight require strict evidence...That behavior stuff is a lie...My posts on the Education Forum are still there for anyone to see...I was quite civil and was asking people to please address the evidence...It was actually the favored Prayer Man posters who were violating the rules and attacking me...When Gordon banned me I asked him why and he responded he didn't have to answer...The Murphy posters had been PM-ing Gordon telling him I was a troll and should not be allowed to post on the Education Forum...My points of evidence still remain unanswered by the way...Sure, my banning has nothing to do with my being lethal to the favored Murphy theory or my evidence...Yep...Bad behavior - that's what it was...

  When Duncan posted a clear image of Sarah Stanton in the form of the Davidson enhancement Gordon ignored this clear proof and banned Duncan from posting...Gordon justified it by saying Duncan was only trying to provoke Kamp and was ignoring his good research...Never mind that Duncan's Davidson proof just refuted all of that research Gordon was protecting...When Gilbride sided with me he was also banned...

    Vanessa, I'm here any time you want to put some credibility behind that accusation of my being discredited and actually take me on without calling for cowardly censorship and banning...

    Now moderator Mark Knight is enforcing the gang attack on Graves...Knight is claiming Graves has shown nothing new...However Knight is ignoring Grave's (my) entire case of evidence that shows how Calvery's being located in Darnell proves that Frazier is talking to Prayer Man at the exact time he said he was talking to Sarah...Knight ignores how we have proven a very tight time window where Frazier only has a very limited time to react to the word of a president being shot...Snake Oil salesman Andrej Stancak wants you to disconnect your common sense and believe Frazier waited a long period to turn around 180 degrees and ask someone behind him what Calvery had said instead of instantly reacting like a person who was witnessing a presidential assassination would do...Knight uses the "speculation" card to avoid the objective moderator duty of giving fair hearing to what is sound evidence based on factual testimony...Factual testimony that just so happens to dovetail perfectly with what we are seeing in Couch/Darnell...Knight ignores that the very new evidence of proving Calvery had just completed her run to the steps does incur new conclusions that must be given fair hearing on any credible JFK assassination website...It shows that Calvery had just completed her shouting the president had been shot so any reasonable analyst would conclude that Frazier had heard her and therefore reacted by the time of the Darnell image...During a presidential assassination that reaction would not be slow or delayed so we can assume Frazier is talking to the person he called "Sarah" by what all the evidence is showing...I'm afraid the Education Forum moderators are acting according to their own personal prejudices rather than responding to what the best new evidence shows...And that's a shame for any forum that claims to fairly be analyzing Kennedy assassination evidence...The evidence is not "loose" as Stancak falsely claims...The evidence scenario we have shown is actually very tight and none of its doubters have answered its proven particulars...

Debra Conway today on her Facebook page:

  " It is unfortunate for serious researchers to be closed out of a public discussion. As far as I know, there is no final consensus among the research community on LHO standing at the front door of a building at the time of the JFK shooting.

While I admit there are "dead issues" for me (Zapruder film alteration, certain JFK body alteration theories, etc.), it has not been proven that it is LHO at the door, rather it is easily assessable through the evidence available that it is Sarah Stanton. Fuzzy pictures do not equal truth.

Brian, all you can do is make your work available to the public, using social media or on a website, blog, etc. that can be found with a simple Google search. Let's talk about linking to your research from the Lancer site. "


    Who, on the Education Forum, is going to have the nerve to tell King Gordon he is naked as a jay bird and only proving our point in spades...
 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on April 12, 2018, 07:26:23 AM
 I see that there is still some debate about Prayer Person's position on the top step but unfortunately the pseudo scientific methodology in trying to retrieve three dimensional information from a two dimensional image is mostly misguided.
 In the following Gif we can see the scenery moving as the camera pans, the mountains in the background are slowing scrolling whereas the trees in the immediate foreground are moving much more quickly therefore when comparing two consecutive frames we can calculate the distances by the amount of separation between objects, the mountains will have a little separation and the objects closer to the camera will have more and more as the distance to camera decreases.

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/zcUAiknOYgKas/giphy.gif)

 The same principle can be applied to the following consecutive frames which demonstrate a similar horizontal separation and by centering on the most distant object which is the leftmost frame of the door we can immediately see that the amount of separation on Prayer Person directly in front is virtually zero indicating that PP is in the corner and on the other hand look at Frazier and we can see that there is much more separation between Frazier's head and the rear door frame meaning that Frazier is closer to the front of the top step, this observation is corroborated by Frazier's rear reflection.  Of course if anyone makes any dramatic movements in that fraction of a second between frames then this analysis can be a little off but by comparing all the available frames I see no discernable movement by PP or BWF.

(https://s18.postimg.org/l3lv268zd/pm1_zpsorhj1xpm.gif)

(https://s18.postimg.org/5uvxofhvt/pm_zpsu2ndrrdw_2.gif)

If you have a pair of red/cyan 3D glasses you will instantly see the depth within the image.

(https://s18.postimg.org/k1bojmxvt/pm_3d_zpsrm5gtq5t_2.jpg)

Btw this technique is nothing new and is validated by Nasa which uses the same stereoscopic imagery to calculate distances.

(http://www.3dham.com/stereo/mars/81429_FU.JPG)
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA10994
 


JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 12, 2018, 05:23:12 PM

         The Education Forum lies about its reasons for moderation and doesn't aspire to the true evidence like its power-abusing moderators claim...There's a clear bias on that board towards the Prayer Man theory posters and persons posting refuting evidence are denied the right to post their evidence in a fair manner...Moderator Knight did not objectively weigh the evidence and made false claims in order to deny it...Gordon is aware of this and he is also aware of his persecuting persons who stand up to their bully moderation because he says if you don't like it you can post somewhere else...The moderation on the Education Forum is not objective and does not moderate in a neutral manner like a credible academic forum requires...In a case where Thomas Graves had shown good evidence that Prayer Man turned towards Frazier in between the Wiegman and Darnell films moderator Knight came in and claimed Graves had not shown proof that Prayer Man turned to Frazier in order to talk to him...Meanwhile Stancak had shown a computer graphic of Prayer Man and Frazier that did not turn them toward each other enough and therefore did not accurately portray their positions...No moderator or Education Forum member noticed this serious misrepresentation by Stancak that was deliberately designed to mislead people on what Prayer Man and Frazier were doing...Instead of honestly recognizing the context of my getting Debra Conway to agree with us that Prayer Man is Stanton moderator Kathy Beckett went out of her way to defend Kamp...When I confronted Beckett on this on Conway's Facebook page she blocked my account and removed my Education Forum membership...Those EF moderators do not tolerate criticism even if correct...Knight lied and said nothing new had been shown and no progress was being made on understanding the assassination from our input and that it was just an attempt to get attention...That isn't at all true and if Mr Knight had more honest ability he would recognize that what Graves was trying to show him was actually the most important new evidence that advanced the case more than anyone has so far...Mr Knight violated his trust and responsibility as moderator in the worst way he could and he made veiled threats while doing it...He seems to be ignorant of the fact that proving Gloria Calvery is at the steps in Couch/Darnell means that she had just shouted the president has been shot on the way to that point...That means by all deductive reasoning Buell Frazier has already heard Calvery shouting and is in the process of asking "Sarah" what Calvery had said...It is criminal for Mr Knight to impose himself in an intimidating way to this evidence and ignore it like he did, reducing it to "you haven't proven Prayer Man and Frazier are talking"...Mr Knight gave no consideration to the fact that Graves had just laid out the most plausible accurate scenario that was backed by testimony and visual evidence...It isn't true that we haven't proven Prayer Man and Frazier are talking to each other when all the evidence strongly suggests they were...Evidence Knight ignored...If Knight had more forensic ability he would realize that Prayer Man and Frazier never change positions in Couch/Darnell...The reason for that is because they are focused on each other while talking...There's a desperate effort on the Education Forum to rescue the now-debunked Prayer Man theory...Gordon once again comes in and threatens people for posting correct evidence telling them it is tough and if they don't like it they can leave...He lies and complains that the presentation of that correct evidence is intolerable "infighting" that he will once again solve with bully censorship under the guise of needed site moderation...It is amazing the number of smart members who see this but choose to remain silent while talented innocent researchers are persecuted and the community is deliberately misled by this bully...How dishonest can they be?...What is obviously happening here is Graves was getting close to overturning the dishonestly-protected rotten Kamp evidence and Gordon once again stepped in with bully threats to stop it...That's not credible and the JFK research community has once again been dishonestly led away from brilliant good evidence to ridiculous concocted malarkey by bullies posing as moderators...When is the community going to stop attacking its best minds and start standing up to these crooks?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 12, 2018, 06:03:51 PM
I see that there is still some debate about Prayer Person's position on the top step but unfortunately the pseudo scientific methodology in trying to retrieve three dimensional information from a two dimensional image is mostly misguided.
 


    That's simply wrong Mr Mytton...If you had a better understanding of what was being posted here I actually offered the best science that you haven't come close to answering...If you read this thread more carefully we have shown the sun/shadow plane in the portal in the Wiegman and Darnell films exists out by the front of the landing...Gary Murr found an FBI diagram where they measured the portal dimensions and found the landing to be 3 foot 9 inches wide...We have proven that Prayer Man's glowing hand in the Weigman film is caused by Sarah Stanton pushing her arms forward while attempting to look in her purse...When she did that she moved her right hand toward the sun plane and caused it to glow...Drew Phipps used a light measuring app to give a value to the glow on Prayer Man's hand and found it to be 80% of other skin directly lit by sun in Wiegman...That means Stanton's hand is very close to but not past the sun plane...The only place that could happen in the portal would be up at the front of the landing...You seem oblivious to my height analysis that used the aluminum window frame and the 22 degree angle of Darnell to calculate a geometric triangulation that proved Prayer Man could not be back in the corner...If you had more photogrammetric skill you would realize the visible space between Prayer Man's shoulder and the west wall means she is forward from the corner...If Prayer Man were back in the corner her shoulder would be forced against the wall by the scientific restrictions involved...And she would be feet from the sun plane making it impossible for it to be illuminating her hand...I'm sorry but it is you who offers the pseudo-science here and it is ignorant to ignore the fact our triangulation geometry derived from a 2 dimensional image does create valid 3 dimensional conclusions...Conclusions you haven't validly dismissed or validly answered...

That said, these correct positions prove that an arcking transit line drawn by protractor through Prayer Man and Frazier from Darnell's camera will show they are only roughly a foot apart in depth separation..Drew Phipps used trigonometry calculations to show that at 75 feet a 1 foot depth separation of the objects in question would only produce something like 1/10th of an inch in perspective differential and therefore not affect a direct height comparison involving a difference of 7 inches...In other words, counter to the Prayer Man nuts' claim, Frazier and Prayer Man can be directly compared in height in Darnell...

Even Stancak recognized how the sun glow on Prayer Man's hand placed her at the front of the landing...Only he knew that Prayer Man's height disqualified her from being Oswald so he tried to force Prayer Man's foot to the step in both Wiegman and Darnell...I disproved this further back in the thread by showing how Stancak had to alter the length of Prayer Man's leg to grotesque proportions to make it work...But Barry Pollard's GIF of all Prayer Man images also disproved Stancak by showing how Prayer Man's movement precluded any foot being on the step...

Please don't challenge our science Mr Mytton...It is quite valid and quite conclusive...   

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 12, 2018, 08:40:45 PM
Why are the moderation policies of some other site any of our concern?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on April 12, 2018, 09:57:58 PM

    That's simply wrong Mr Mytton...If you had a better understanding of what was being posted here I actually offered the best science that you haven't come close to answering...If you read this thread more carefully we have shown the sun/shadow plane in the portal in the Wiegman and Darnell films exists out by the front of the landing...Gary Murr found an FBI diagram where they measured the portal dimensions and found the landing to be 3 foot 9 inches wide...We have proven that Prayer Man's glowing hand in the Weigman film is caused by Sarah Stanton pushing her arms forward while attempting to look in her purse...When she did that she moved her right hand toward the sun plane and caused it to glow...Drew Phipps used a light measuring app to give a value to the glow on Prayer Man's hand and found it to be 80% of other skin directly lit by sun in Wiegman...That means Stanton's hand is very close to but not past the sun plane...The only place that could happen in the portal would be up at the front of the landing...You seem oblivious to my height analysis that used the aluminum window frame and the 22 degree angle of Darnell to calculate a geometric triangulation that proved Prayer Man could not be back in the corner...If you had more photogrammetric skill you would realize the visible space between Prayer Man's shoulder and the west wall means she is forward from the corner...If Prayer Man were back in the corner her shoulder would be forced against the wall by the scientific restrictions involved...And she would be feet from the sun plane making it impossible for it to be illuminating her hand...I'm sorry but it is you who offers the pseudo-science here and it is ignorant to ignore the fact our triangulation geometry derived from a 2 dimensional image does create valid 3 dimensional conclusions...Conclusions you haven't validly dismissed or validly answered...

That said, these correct positions prove that an arcking transit line drawn by protractor through Prayer Man and Frazier from Darnell's camera will show they are only roughly a foot apart in depth separation..Drew Phipps used trigonometry calculations to show that at 75 feet a 1 foot depth separation of the objects in question would only produce something like 1/10th of an inch in perspective differential and therefore not affect a direct height comparison involving a difference of 7 inches...In other words, counter to the Prayer Man nuts' claim, Frazier and Prayer Man can be directly compared in height in Darnell...

Even Stancak recognized how the sun glow on Prayer Man's hand placed her at the front of the landing...Only he knew that Prayer Man's height disqualified her from being Oswald so he tried to force Prayer Man's foot to the step in both Wiegman and Darnell...I disproved this further back in the thread by showing how Stancak had to alter the length of Prayer Man's leg to grotesque proportions to make it work...But Barry Pollard's GIF of all Prayer Man images also disproved Stancak by showing how Prayer Man's movement precluded any foot being on the step...

Please don't challenge our science Mr Mytton...It is quite valid and quite conclusive...




Quote
That's simply wrong Mr Mytton...

My methodology is endorsed by NASA whereas your observations are your own.

Quote
If you had a better understanding of what was being posted here I actually offered the best science that you haven't come close to answering...

There you go again, if people don't understand your explanations then who validates your ideas?

Quote
If you read this thread more carefully we have shown

"we"???

Quote
Gary Murr found an FBI diagram where they measured the portal dimensions and found the landing to be 3 foot 9 inches wide...

(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/d/d9/Photo_wcd496_0015.jpg)

Quote
We have proven that Prayer Man's glowing hand in the Weigman film is caused by Sarah Stanton pushing her arms forward while attempting to look in her purse...

Proven? How?

Quote
When she did that she moved her right hand toward the sun plane and caused it to glow...Drew Phipps used a light measuring app to give a value to the glow on Prayer Man's hand and found it to be 80% of other skin directly lit by sun in Wiegman...That means Stanton's hand is very close to but not past the sun plane...

"other skin" LOL!

(https://static.diffen.com/uploadz/b/be/race.jpg)

Quote
You seem oblivious to my height analysis that used the aluminum window frame and the 22 degree angle of Darnell to calculate a geometric triangulation that proved Prayer Man could not be back in the corner...

So you determined three dimensional positions from a two dimensional image by triangulation, geez I'd like to see that!

Quote
If you had more photogrammetric skill you would realize the visible space between Prayer Man's shoulder and the west wall means she is forward from the corner...

How does your layman observation represent "photogrammetry"? And in your estimation what is the distance between PP's shoulder and the wall?

Quote
If Prayer Man were back in the corner her shoulder would be forced against the wall by the scientific restrictions involved...

Now you're just rambling, "scientific restrictions"!?

Quote
And she would be feet from the sun plane making it impossible for it to be illuminating her hand...

Why do you think that the ambient light only highlighted PP's hand, what happened to the light falling on PP's wrist and forearm?

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-woMqP_XxRp4/V3TknBnfZuI/AAAAAAAAAGw/DJ_rgEEUNqMjckD4vaGTJUMQvxo23LdLwCLcB/s1600/Wiegman%2B1%2BBlogger.jpg)

Quote
I'm sorry but it is you who offers the pseudo-science here and it is ignorant to ignore the fact our triangulation geometry derived from a 2 dimensional image does create valid 3 dimensional conclusions...

Present your diagrams and analysis and then I'll show you why you're wrong.

Quote
Conclusions you haven't validly dismissed or validly answered...

When you present your evidence and conclusions then we'll talk.

Quote
That said, these correct positions prove that an arcking transit line drawn by protractor through Prayer Man and Frazier from Darnell's camera will show they are only roughly a foot apart in depth separation..Drew Phipps used trigonometry calculations to show that at 75 feet a 1 foot depth separation of the objects in question would only produce something like 1/10th of an inch in perspective differential and therefore not affect a direct height comparison involving a difference of 7 inches...In other words, counter to the Prayer Man nuts' claim, Frazier and Prayer Man can be directly compared in height in Darnell...

WTF! "an arcking transit line drawn by protractor"?
Btw, none of the above determines the depth of either PP or Frazier so try again!

Quote
Even Stancak recognized how the sun glow on Prayer Man's hand placed her at the front of the landing...

So now you are using Stancak to support your ideas? Anyway didn't Stancak say that PP's hand broke the sun plane which isn't exactly your theory?

Quote
Only he knew that Prayer Man's height disqualified her from being Oswald so he tried to force Prayer Man's foot to the step in both Wiegman and Darnell...I disproved this further back in the thread by showing how Stancak had to alter the length of Prayer Man's leg to grotesque proportions to make it work...

What did you disprove? It's physically possible to stand on two steps simultaneously.

(https://previews.123rf.com/images/sketchyt/sketchyt1208/sketchyt120800011/14731433-young-black-man-standing-on-light-colored-store-front-steps-looking-back-over-his-right-shoulder--Stock-Photo.jpg)

Quote
But Barry Pollard's GIF of all Prayer Man images also disproved Stancak by showing how Prayer Man's movement precluded any foot being on the step...

Who's Barry Pollard when he's at home and where are these GIFs?

Quote
Please don't challenge our science Mr Mytton...It is quite valid and quite conclusive...

ZZZzzzzzz......



JohnM

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 13, 2018, 12:43:32 AM
     How have I proven that the glowing hand is caused by Sarah Stanton pushing her right hand forward in to the sun plane? Kind of a dumb question...If you read the thread I have shown the sun plane as evidenced by its location on Lovelady in Wiegman...If you have a working understanding of the portal features you can interpret where the shadow/sun plane is according to where the shadow of the west wall falls on Lovelady...Pollard tried to defeat this but gave up when he realized he couldn't deny it...Once you establish where that sun plane is according to Lovelady in Wiegman you can determine where Prayer Man would have to be located with her hand slightly extended forward in order to glance that light source and make her hand glow in it...I said this 4 years ago when I first discovered it and I was attacked and ridiculed by the ROKC nuts...It is as true now as it was then and even Stancak acknowledged its legitimacy...Why, what did you offer to show otherwise besides questions that expose your ignorance and basic lack of understanding of the science being shown here? Look at Stanton...She has her right hand thrust forward while holding her purse up in order to look in to it...According to the portal dimensions that you are obviously completely oblivious to that glancing of the sun plane could not occur further back in the portal corner...Your questions show you are clueless to what is being discussed here...

   Again, your ignorance is once again trumpeted by yourself when you fail to realize that the hand glowing in sun can only occur in one spot...When you align Prayer Man's head with the aluminum frame and input the 22 degree angle to the west wall Darnell is at, in combination with Prayer Man's location in relation to the sun plane, it creates a 3 dimensional geometric triangulation based on the data contained in the 2 dimensional image...You might think you are being clever with that 2D business but your are obviously totally ignorant over how what I just posted proves you can establish 3 dimensional data from a 2 dimensional photo... The embarrassing truth Mr Mytton is you were just shown how that was done and it was obviously over your head...You probably still don't understand it...

     I would estimate Prayer Man's shoulder is about a foot from the wall...Expert analysis would tell us...However if you had the skill you pretend to have you would already know that could be directly determined by the triangulation I just posted and calculation of Stanton's shoulder width in relation to her position in that triangulation...We know exactly where Stanton is and Stancak isn't far off...Only both feet are on the landing...But you haven't answered the point...She can't be in the corner because her shoulder would be pressed against the wall...I have explained this numerous times before over the years...

    Dumb question Mytton...Only Sarah's hand is lit because it was stuck forward enough while looking in to the purse to glance the sun plane...This really isn't for the unskilled...However if you look at all frames, the elbow area of her forearm is also illuminated in another frame...The reason the mid forearm isn't illuminated in that frame is because the purse is blocking it...

    You show sheer ignorance of what is being discussed here by mocking the arcking radius drawn by protractor from Darnell's lens...It is a fairly basic geometric measurement that places the needle of the protractor at the point of Darnell's lens and runs the pencil end in a arc through Frazier and Prayer Man...This measurement would show Prayer Man is only at about a foot difference in depth from Frazier and is therefore easily directly comparable in height to Prayer Man... You're making a fool of yourself if you don't understand this basic mathematical function...
   
    Your answers show you don't understand what is being said here...If you turn Prayer Man from Wiegman, where Prayer Man's shoulders are squared to the landing, to Darnell, where Prayer Man is facing Frazier, while keeping his right foot on the step, it doesn't work...Go try it yourself on some steps but remember to be fiddling with a purse in your raised hands while doing it...The person would step back up to the landing instead of maintaining that uncomfortable awkward position...No one would stand with their foot on the step with their shoulders squared to the landing..The reason Stancak did not make a graphic for Prayer Man with his shoulders squared to the landing is because he knew it didn't work...

     
   One look at the Pollard GIF would instantly show the above and prove Prayer Man had both feet on the landing...Once you prove that then Prayer Man is 7 inches shorter than Frazier and cannot possibly be Oswald...

   
     
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on April 13, 2018, 01:22:02 AM
     How have I proven that the glowing hand is caused by Sarah Stanton pushing her right hand forward in to the sun plane? Kind of a dumb question...If you read the thread I have shown the sun plane as evidenced by its location on Lovelady in Wiegman...If you have a working understanding of the portal features you can interpret where the shadow/sun plane is according to where the shadow of the west wall falls on Lovelady...Pollard tried to defeat this but gave up when he realized he couldn't deny it...Once you establish where that sun plane is according to Lovelady in Wiegman you can determine where Prayer Man would have to be located with her hand slightly extended forward in order to glance that light source and make her hand glow in it...I said this 4 years ago when I first discovered it and I was attacked and ridiculed by the ROKC nuts...It is as true now as it was then and even Stancak acknowledged its legitimacy...Why, what did you offer to show otherwise besides questions that expose your ignorance and basic lack of understanding of the science being shown here? Look at Stanton...She has her right hand thrust forward while holding her purse up in order to look in to it...According to the portal dimensions that you are obviously completely oblivious to that glancing of the sun plane could not occur further back in the portal corner...Your questions show you are clueless to what is being discussed here...

   Again, your ignorance is once again trumpeted by yourself when you fail to realize that the hand glowing in sun can only occur in one spot...When you align Prayer Man's head with the aluminum frame and input the 22 degree angle to the west wall Darnell is at, in combination with Prayer Man's location in relation to the sun plane, it creates a 3 dimensional geometric triangulation based on the data contained in the 2 dimensional image...You might think you are being clever with that 2D business but your are obviously totally ignorant over how what I just posted proves you can establish 3 dimensional data from a 2 dimensional photo... The embarrassing truth Mr Mytton is you were just shown how that was done and it was obviously over your head...You probably still don't understand it...

     I would estimate Prayer Man's shoulder is about a foot from the wall...Expert analysis would tell us...However if you had the skill you pretend to have you would already know that could be directly determined by the triangulation I just posted and calculation of Stanton's shoulder width in relation to her position in that triangulation...We know exactly where Stanton is and Stancak isn't far off...Only both feet are on the landing...But you haven't answered the point...She can't be in the corner because her shoulder would be pressed against the wall...I have explained this numerous times before over the years...

    Dumb question Mytton...Only Sarah's hand is lit because it was stuck forward enough while looking in to the purse to glance the sun plane...This really isn't for the unskilled...However if you look at all frames, the elbow area of her forearm is also illuminated in another frame...The reason the mid forearm isn't illuminated in that frame is because the purse is blocking it...

    You show sheer ignorance of what is being discussed here by mocking the arcking radius drawn by protractor from Darnell's lens...It is a fairly basic geometric measurement that places the needle of the protractor at the point of Darnell's lens and runs the pencil end in a arc through Frazier and Prayer Man...This measurement would show Prayer Man is only at about a foot difference in depth from Frazier and is therefore easily directly comparable in height to Prayer Man... You're making a fool of yourself if you don't understand this basic mathematical function...
   
    Your answers show you don't understand what is being said here...If you turn Prayer Man from Wiegman, where Prayer Man's shoulders are squared to the landing, to Darnell, where Prayer Man is facing Frazier, while keeping his right foot on the step, it doesn't work...Go try it yourself on some steps but remember to be fiddling with a purse in your raised hands while doing it...The person would step back up to the landing instead of maintaining that uncomfortable awkward position...No one would stand with their foot on the step with their shoulders squared to the landing..The reason Stancak did not make a graphic for Prayer Man with his shoulders squared to the landing is because he knew it didn't work...

     
   One look at the Pollard GIF would instantly show the above and prove Prayer Man had both feet on the landing...Once you prove that then Prayer Man is 7 inches shorter than Frazier and cannot possibly be Oswald...

   
     




Yawn! How predictable. another wall of indecipherable text which amounts to complete gobbledegook, since this problem is visual how about you present diagrams to illustrate your ideas because anyone can make outrageous illogical claims but proving it in a way that can be understood is the key to your success and so far you don't know Martha from Arthur.
Besides, my NASA Level Mathematical Analysis(NLMA) of consecutive stereoscopic images shows precisely where PP was located whereas your vague guesses can only lead to heavy approximation.

(https://s18.postimg.org/l3lv268zd/pm1_zpsorhj1xpm.gif)

(https://s18.postimg.org/5uvxofhvt/pm_zpsu2ndrrdw_2.gif)

(https://s18.postimg.org/k1bojmxvt/pm_3d_zpsrm5gtq5t_2.jpg)



JohnM 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 13, 2018, 05:35:08 AM

  Translation:   "I can't understand what you are saying because it is over my head"...


  Unskilled persons shouldn't attempt this...My height analysis and triangulation are sound and you couldn't give any credible answer to it - thanks...


  The sun angle on Lovelady in Wiegman is in post #32...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on April 13, 2018, 07:26:14 AM
  Translation:   "I can't understand what you are saying because it is over my head"...


  Unskilled persons shouldn't attempt this...My height analysis and triangulation are sound and you couldn't give any credible answer to it - thanks...


  The sun angle on Lovelady in Wiegman is in post #32...



Quote
Translation:   "I can't understand what you are saying because it is over my head"...

I'm sorry Sonny Jim but I have successfully posted hundreds of images/videos analysing virtually every controversial image/film/video of this case and have several photobucket libraries to prove it, whereas you have suddenly burst on the scene and without any experience have thrust your embarrassing guesses down our throats.
My proven methodology is the very essence of photogrammetry and on the other hand in your latest wall of words your usage of phrases like "you can interpret where the..." and "I would estimate" ironically subconsciously betrays you. You're in over your head Doyle and watching you drown instead of embracing my lifeline of NASA level analysis saddens me.

Quote
  Unskilled persons shouldn't attempt this...My height analysis and triangulation are sound and you couldn't give any credible answer to it - thanks...

You're only using the word "triangulation" since you learnt it from me. Let's get real. if your "triangulation" is sound then present your diagrams to prove it because saying that X was close to Y and the sun was close in position Z etc etc is a lot of codswallop which proves nothing. Imagine you're in court and you're trying to convince a jury, now be honest do you think that your long pointless monologues would convince anyone but on the other hand my irrefutable depth mapped stereoscopic images would make your self serving interpretations and estimates a laughing stock and that's a fact Jack!

Quote
The sun angle on Lovelady in Wiegman is in post #32...

And again you are favorably guessing where people were standing to fuel your illiterate nonsense.



JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 13, 2018, 06:20:04 PM

I'm at a loss because my computer won't copy the "Properties" url of images...When I click and drag the cursor across a properties url it doesn't highlight...

If I could post images I would show the classic Darnell frame from which the infamous Prayer Man image originated...A skilled observer would note that Darnell's camera is shooting the portal scene at about a 22 degree angle to the portal...You can then observe that Prayer Man's head is in line with the aluminum window frame behind her...What that means is Prayer Man is somewhere on the line that goes from Darnell's camera to the aluminum frame...

This is where the sun plane Ray refuses to honestly recognize comes in...If you look at the Wiegman image I'm linking the shadow of the west wall falls vertically across Lovelady's right side...A wider version of the same image shows Lovelady is leaning on the center rail and is near the middle of the portal...What that means is Stancak's overhead graphic shown in post #6 of this thread has mislocated the shadow plane...It is much further east, as the shadow on Lovelady shows...This is important because it tells you where Prayer Man's hand is located when it is glancing the sun plane...

The triangulation I am talking about determines where the line from Darnell's camera crosses the shadow plane and Prayer Man's relationship to it...Stancak used those coordinates to determine his Prayer Man position only he mislocated PM as having a foot on the step when in fact PM is standing on the landing with both feet...Stancak also moved PM a little too far west because he misdrew the shadow plane...Since the shadow plane is further east that means Prayer Man's hand that is glancing it is also further east...

Prayer Man's right shoulder also has a visible gap between it and the west wall...If you look at Stancak's overhead diagram you can see where the steps are according to the west wall...PM is accordingly at the edge of the landing all considered:

   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 14, 2018, 10:24:06 AM
Here you are Brian. Be my guest.
(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)

Glad to help a genius.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 14, 2018, 10:47:39 PM


I'm sorry Sonny Jim but I have successfully posted hundreds of images/videos analysing virtually every controversial image/film/video of this case and have several photobucket libraries to prove it, whereas you have suddenly burst on the scene and without any experience have thrust your embarrassing guesses down our throats.

My proven methodology is the very essence of photogrammetry and on the other hand in your latest wall of words your usage of phrases like "you can interpret where the..." and "I would estimate" ironically subconsciously betrays you. You're in over your head Doyle and watching you drown instead of embracing my lifeline of NASA level analysis saddens me.

You're only using the word "triangulation" since you learnt it from me. Let's get real. if your "triangulation" is sound then present your diagrams to prove it because saying that X was close to Y and the sun was close in position Z etc etc is a lot of codswallop which proves nothing. Imagine you're in court and you're trying to convince a jury, now be honest do you think that your long pointless monologues would convince anyone but on the other hand my irrefutable depth mapped stereoscopic images would make your self serving interpretations and estimates a laughing stock and that's a fact Jack!

And again you are favorably guessing where people were standing to fuel your illiterate nonsense.



JohnM

I have successfully posted hundreds of images/videos

Just wondering.... is there also an unsuccessfull way to post images/videos?

My proven methodology

Proven by....... ?

instead of embracing my lifeline of NASA level analysis

Who says you meet "NASA level"? .... I phoned NASA and they have never heard of you  ::)

my irrefutable depth mapped stereoscopic images

Say what?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 14, 2018, 11:21:57 PM
Ctrl + c = copy and Ctrl + v = paste so just highlight what you want with your mouse first.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ap_2SJuUbsc/Vhl-omUbx5I/AAAAAAAAmSk/SzoxMk6oEsw/s1600/Darnell%2BWiegman%2Bcollage.jpg)
That could be the true shadow line hitting BL above and there might be a sign of it on BWF's shoulder in Darnell but the earlier Wiegman frame that shows even more shadow hitting BL when he's a step lower cannot be trusted. Compare it for yourself below.

(https://i1.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Steps_1-by-Robin-Unger.gif?resize=800,631)
For the record this shows Lovelady stepped down(from IMHO the top step, one below Shelley) not up. If he was on the landing he may have had to lean too far forward to spot the limo.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 15, 2018, 06:28:09 PM
Barry:   The reason there is more sun in the image of Lovelady when he is on landing is because he is protruding his hand and arm forward more in that image than when he steps down...Instead of questioning the shadow's realness this actually helps verify it...The shadow is straighter when Lovelady steps down because he is protruding forward less and making a cleaner edge...

But this is secondary to the main point you still haven't answered...You seem to be drawing doubt about the shadow but you haven't explained what else it could be...It is more than obvious that it is the west wall of the portal that is causing that shadow and that it is falling across Lovelady, therefore delineating where the Sun/Shadow plane is in the portal... 

You are failing to account for the fact Lovelady stepped down at an angle and therefore created the shadow differences you site...
         
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 15, 2018, 08:02:38 PM
If you could actually prove Lovelady was on the landing above, then it'd be all over Brian. It's bad enough for PM if BL is on the top step which is where I think he is.
As far as the shadow goes, all indications tell us that the west wall's shadow hits people at an angle, like on the reporter in Murray and in the evidence above and on the steps themselves, the one frame where it's hitting BL straight up and down makes no sense and yes I can see BL moved west slightly as he stepped down but his body posture is very similar, the heavy leaning moment we see in Altgens was over, the reasons you gave for the difference might produce a similar amount of shadow but not more, which is clearly what we have. Regardless, the shadow on him there where he's near the top is enough for your dispute and I have offered an explaination for it albeit a layman's one, I said it might be a combination of the film/camera/position of subject and the pattern of his shirt making it difficult for Weigman to produce the truth, that and the fact that there is no other evidence supporting that heavy a shadow on anyone else in later images.

Imagine you're on the steps Brian, and the sun is in a similar position, doesn't have to be exact, now you walk up the steps and place your feet into the first shaded parts so that they are completely enveloped in shadow, just your feet perhaps even up to your ankles. Is your upper body being hit by anything?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 15, 2018, 11:58:51 PM
As far as the shadow goes, all indications tell us that the west wall's shadow hits people at an angle, like on the reporter in Murray and in the evidence above and on the steps themselves, the one frame where it's hitting BL straight up and down makes no sense and yes I can see BL moved west slightly as he stepped down but his body posture is very similar, the heavy leaning moment we see in Altgens was over, the reasons you gave for the difference might produce a similar amount of shadow but not more, which is clearly what we have. Regardless, the shadow on him there where he's near the top is enough for your dispute and I have offered an explaination for it albeit a layman's one, I said it might be a combination of the film/camera/position of subject and the pattern of his shirt making it difficult for Weigman to produce the truth, that and the fact that there is no other evidence supporting that heavy a shadow on anyone else in later images.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same Murray photo...But if it's the one with the left arm in shadow, like you say, that alone proves my point that Stancak's shadow is misdrawn...

We are again at the same impasse...You say you have a problem with the straight up and down shadow on Lovelady when he steps down...However you have still skipped a phase in evidence logic...The shadow has to be caused by something...Anyone can look at Wiegman and see there is no object between Lovelady and the west wall so therefore that straight up and down shadow is the shadow of the west wall...It has to be because you have failed to name anything else it could be...The reason the shadow goes straight up and down on Lovelady when he steps down makes perfect sense...It is because he has stepped down in to the vertical part of the shadow...

 No, your explanations are not scientifically credible...The shadow is clearly the shadow and none of the things you offered could possibly be accountable for it...The reason there is no straight up and down shadow on Lovelady when he is on the landing is because his arm is sticking out forward and distorting the shadow...When Lovelady steps down he is more or less on a flat plane and therefore making a straight shadow...In fact the shadow itself is the indicator for this...

You are switching terms...We are not talking about a heavy shadow...We are talking about the shadow itself...Any shadow...It's position not its deepness...

Imagine you're on the steps Brian, and the sun is in a similar position, doesn't have to be exact, now you walk up the steps and place your feet into the first shaded parts so that they are completely enveloped in shadow, just your feet perhaps even up to your ankles. Is your upper body being hit by anything?

You can't do that with the vertical shadow of the west wall...Look at Stancak's overhead graphic to get a sense of why that isn't possible...
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 16, 2018, 07:59:16 PM
There's a sad and pathetic thing going on on the Deep Politics board...Richard Gilbride called out the moderation over their delinquency on the Prayer Man and Lunch Room Encounter matters and failure to follow their own rules...Just as they have been doing for the last 3 years, the moderation responded in a self-serving way and ignored the real issue and the site rules that backed it...The Deep Politics board was formed as a sanctuary from the Education Forum and its capricious moderation...It was designed as a sanctuary for those who had minority evidence or unpopular positions based on intelligent evidence...It used to be run that way until the administrator Magda Hassan turned the board over to a primitive named Lauren Johnson who proceeded to reduce the room to his own personal bully pit and moderate according to his own personal whims rather than the site rules and previous philosophy...

It is sad to see that I am now referred to as "Doyle" over there in a one word reference equal to "Fetzer" by people who aren't fit to touch the hem of my garment intellectually...Especially in the technical analysis department where the people judging me are of conspicuously low skill sets as far as examination of evidence (and even lower in honesty)...Thanks to the lowbrow nature of the thug currently calling himself "Super Moderator" (what kind of person calls themselves a super moderator instead of just moderator), and the cowardly pseudo-sophist known as Peter Lemkin, intelligent analysis has now become outlawed on the Deep Politics board and its practicers labeled undesirables...Gilbride made a very valid complaint recently based on site rules...Because Lauren Johnson is intellectually unfit to be moderator that protest and its valid complaint met the same hostile attack as Duncan's evidence that he posted on the Education Forum of a couple of years ago...It is more than apparent that gangs of so-called researchers have gathered under false authority to deny good evidence...This is a particularly egregious violation on the Deep Politics board because it has a set of site rules that strictly prevent such sabotaging of intellectual content...Whenever the pertinent site rules are cited L Johnson ignores them each and every time and comes in against the protesting members...It is more than apparent to me that Mr Johnson does this not because the material is unworthy or its presentation is unsound, but because he himself is intellectually unfit to process the issue as moderator and is frankly unable to understand what is being argued...This is Magda's fault because she appointed a person who has an obvious problem as moderator and he has exceeded his bounds for personal reasons...It is clear that Lauren has no sense of obedience to his own rules or their objective practice...It is unfortunate that this issue has therefore been consciously guided towards the predictable escapes of a site bias in favor of DiEugenio and the intellectual limitations of the offenders who just so happen to all have moderator avatars and, by miraculous coincidence, happen to rule in favor of themselves each and every time...

When I first sent this issue privately to Lemkin he told me he didn't like Lauren and his moderation but there was nothing he could do because Magda appointed him...Peter also told me there was a site pecking order that I would just have to get used to...Peter was oblivious to his own site rule #13 that disallows such a hierarchy and forces all members to have equal rights and equal answerability to the site rules...Dawn has no intellect what so ever and limits herself to girlish chat and DiEugenio sycophantism...Go out and search for any posts of substance by Dawn or even Lauren for that matter and you won't find any...It is painfully apparent that those two are attacking people of intelligence in order to enforce their dumb-downed concepts of board decorum...Not only is that tragic and against the generally understood practices of academic research but it is violently against their own posted site rules and the suggested purpose of the website those rules were formed for...Dawn is a Facebook girl and saves her site "authority" for the unfair attacking and censorship of innocent members in order to avoid admitting serious misconduct by the board moderation...When I first got banned Dawn sided with me and said I should be put back on...Lauren then made his power move on the board and refused...Since her friend Jim D was involved Dawn threw me under the bus and then turned on me...Dawn always avoids the real issue in her moderator responses and comes in on the side of the status quo...That's actually a violation of her own rules that require her to honestly moderate, but when you have Lauren deleting the posts of the victims it is easy to get away with...

Lauren still hasn't been made to answer for a very cowardly thing he did...Over two years ago Lauren put me on suspension for 3 months because I dared tell him he wasn't giving fair consideration to our height analysis that proved Prayer Man wasn't Oswald...The primitive L Johnson reacted severely to this challenge of his super moderation responding "You're a god-damned troll get the xxxx out of here" (Which was a direct violation of his own rule #14 that said members would not be subjected to abuse or name-calling)...In Lauren's simple mind my rules-backed protest was only an attempt to troll the board...Lauren, by the way, had openly endorsed Murphy saying Oswald was Prayer Man along with Magda...Both of them said I wasn't listening to the "experts" (Josephs, Healy, and Cross lol) and I found myself on a 3 month vacation without explanation...After I posted the conclusive Davidson enhancement and it became clear Prayer Man was Sarah Stanton, instead of admitting I was correct on the board Lauren doubled down on the abuse and started harassing me on the board...He deleted posts and moved the thread to the "Bear Pit"...His motive was clearly to abuse his power to avoid admitting his incompetency and mis-moderation on Prayer Man while blaming the victim...

The issue then came to a head when Jim DiEugenio endorsed Kamp's Lunch Room Encounter essay...I pointed-out to Lauren that he had allowed DiEugenio to violate one of the most important DPF rules when Jim endorsed the FBI's alteration of Carolyn Arnold's witnessing...Kamp had sided with FBI and their lies because he knew Carolyn Arnold's witnessing debunked his Prayer Man nonsense...By endorsing this Jim D had seriously violated the strict DPF rule against Lone Nutter evidence...When I correctly cited this Lauren responded "You are a god-damned troll get the xxxx out of here"...I then received a Private Message from Lauren telling me to be honest he now thought Prayer Man wasn't Oswald but if I continued to press the issue I would be banned...He said he hated to do that because my other material was so excellent...So instead of going out on the board and apologizing and admitting my material taught him the correct evidence Lauren sent me a cowardly PM blackmailing me in order to protect himself... I was then banned permanently with the others looking on and saying nothing even though I had correctly cited a serious rules violation by Jim and the moderator...The DPF moderation refuses to allow that the moderators have mis-moderated against their own rules and are the problem here...For the last 3 years every time a member correctly protests via the material and rules the moderator gang descends on them and dishonestly refashions the issue into an intolerable rules violation by the victims while conveniently ignoring their protest...It has devolved in to a contest of the moderator bullies vs the skilled posters with the bullies having the last word and threatening moderation while never answering for their rules-based wrongdoing...In a private phone call Drew Phipps told me he left the Deep Politics board in disgust over its moderation...

DiEugenio and the Murphy gang have done a very dishonest and dishonorable thing...Because Davidson refuses to defend his own finding the Murphy gang has dishonestly bypassed Davidson and his proof and forced the position that this issue is at the impasse of waiting for a better scan...That isn't true and Davidson's enhancement was good enough to settle the issue...There is also other reinforcing spoken testimony they are ignoring with equal intent... Rule #2 stresses the free speech nature of the board, but then Peter bullies Richard dictating what words he can use and what words he can't...Meanwhile we are labelled "obsessed" by those same moderators when in fact the issue is being prolonged because of their mis-moderation and disallowance of good evidence...Because they refuse to hold Jim D to the rules...

Board moderation is very critical to the development and practice of academic research and assassination evidence...Having an unqualified, unfit moderator in charge can be enormously detrimental to the overall process and purpose of assassination research websites...Lauren Johnson told Gilbride that he wasn't interested in the Murphy theory and didn't care...And that he didn't care about Jim's position...It never dawns on Jim D, Peter, Magda, or Dawn that Lauren has just seriously violated his own site rules as moderator and is therefore the source of the problem...Anyone who reads Deep Politics Forum site rules # 1, 2, 13, & 14 will see that Lauren has no choice to care or not and is required as part of his role and responsibility as moderator to oversee such important issues of evidence...Especially ones that are at the center of the future of the community's credibility like the Murphy theory...Dawn, Peter, and Magda are less than honest in their ignoring that Lauren is obviously doing this because he is aware of his intellectual deficiencies and doesn't want to expose his incompetency...Lauren knows if he attempts to officiate the Murphy debate he'll show the public and board members his gross inability and therefore expose his unfitness as moderator...In effect what Lauren has done is destroy the board's credibility in order to preserve his power...That one act alone should result in his removal from the moderation...Clearly Lauren's motive for banning me was for the same purpose...He had no qualms over removing probably the best single brilliant evidence analyst on the board who was capable of refuting a 95% community majority...Lauren's boorish responses to Gilbride's eloquent protest also evidence a person who does not posses the intellect, judgment, or skill to moderate this level of assassination research...Lauren is intellectually incapable of conducting the DPF board rules as they were intended...He shows no sign of subjecting himself to those rules or moderating fairly...It is pretty clear that Dawn, Magda, Peter, and Lauren all rely on Jim D for their abstract analyses only this time they got caught violating their own board rules in doing so...The unsophisticated, rules-evasive (dishonest) responses of those in power to Gilbride's correct protest evidence this strongly...The problem here is Lauren...He is not fit to be moderator and the DPF board authorities refuse to come to grips with it... This is a sad situation and what we are really talking about here is researchers who happen to have moderator avatars who may or may not possess the skill to back it...They are reacting defensively for personal purposes instead of fairly following their own site rules...They have abused their power in order to deny a correct protest by better skilled members who happen not to have moderator avatars and therefore cannot defend themselves against the unfair actions of those in power...As usual, what defines this is the unanswered evidence those authorities ignore...Lauren ignorantly fails to realize that once he admits my evidence was correct, like he did in his cowardly Private Message, that his own rules require him to promote and protect it instead of banning me like he did...

If you read the responses, the DPF authorities fail to realize they are in open violation of their posted site rule #14...The letter of the law of that rule encourages those with the correct evidence to post it if they have the arguments and evidence to back it...Rule #13 requires the moderation to give honest hearing and access to those arguments...The reason the moderators who responded to Gilbride ignored the citation of those rules is because they are aware they are in contempt of them and want to rush the issue to their threats of punishment instead of honestly answering Gilbride's protest...Right there out on the DPF board the moderators are collectively in violation of their own board rules and cooperating to ban the protesting members before they have to honestly answer to them...Any reading of rule #14 shows it was intended to provide backing to rule #1...Rule #1 is the first rule because it is the most important..."No false evidence"...After deleting and banning all protesters, Lauren innocently asks "Why the fury?"...It is less than sincere of him to ignore the fact that he has been dedicated to practicing his rules backwards and punishing the people who adhere to them while rewarding Jim D who is in open contempt...Lauren is oblivious to his role in empowering the Murphy camp through his actions and directly leading to the destruction of the community's credibility and corruption of its methods...The DPF rules are clearly a code and guide designed to establish the correct evidence in the Kennedy assassination...The fact Lauren is totally clueless of this even when it is explained and evidence is shown only proves his unfitness for moderator and the real source of the problem...If Lauren is too stupid to understand that he has practiced his rules backwards and directly contributed to the destruction of his own board's purpose as moderator then he is only proving his unfitness for moderator and Magda would do very well in removing him for the preservation of her own website's credibility...               
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 19, 2018, 07:24:57 PM
Oswald probably flinched from the lunch room vestibule door window when he saw Baker...I personally think Baker knew Oswald was standing right there in position in the window observing the goings on on the landing...The reason Baker fuzzied this up in his account was because Oswald standing in position in the vestibule window with his feet out to the landing meant he was probably there for a while...Additionally I think Truly and Baker saw that Oswald was set up eating lunch in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...For Oswald to be standing stationary in the door window and have his lunch on the table means there is no way Oswald just ran down from the Sniper's Nest...What the major dummy DiEugenio fails to realize is THIS was the reason for the lack of details in Baker's first day affidavit...Even worse Baker pushed Oswald, as a nameless employee, further up in the Depository in order to further blur this dangerous witnessing...In my opinion only fools ignore this evidence of Baker being in on the conspiracy by the time of his affidavit...Sharper detectives would realize Baker telling Marvin Johnson that the man he saw was Oswald, but not including it in his report, is evidence of Baker being aware of the need to omit the full details of his 2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on April 19, 2018, 07:57:19 PM
Having determined that the PrayerWoman discussion is far from over, after "developing" some type of "technical issue" on another forum(?),I did a re-think about my decision about not joining any other forum. It is my wish to contribute to this conversation, and possibly a couple of others, in a truthful manner, and based on conclusions developed after careful study.

In any event, I appreciate the opportunity to join the discussion(s), and it is not my wish to agree, or disagree, but to enhance, and express my relative understanding of the JFK Assassination and related events.


For clarity, it is my firm belief/drawn conclusion, that the LeeHarveyOswald as PrayerMan Theory, is simply a theory that lacks any reliable provable evidence. And, statements and/or testimony by known eyewitnesses and/or TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance landing area occupants during the motorcade passing and/or shooting strongly indicates that PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TSBD Bldg.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 19, 2018, 10:11:51 PM
Hey Larry:   Good thing Peter Lemkin has all those practicers of the Deep Politics "ethos" over there on DPF and got rid of the troublemakers like myself (who happen to post correct evidence that disproved Lauren and Jim D)...Trust me, this isn't about somebody suffering wicked injustices for posting the truth against an ignorant, hypocritical majority while following the posted site rules...No...It is an obsessed member who refuses to understand the greater principles Jim, Peter, and Lauren embody...


You have to understand that posting sophisticated evidence that disproves 95% of the community on a major controversial issue is something that Peter and his sensibilities can't tolerate and it isn't just Peter banning somebody because he posts evidence that Peter's too stupid to understand...Dawn too...

The one thing it definitely isn't is power-abusing site authorities abusing their moderator power to not admit they were wrong...That is the one thing we know it couldn't be...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Anthony Clayden on April 19, 2018, 11:07:54 PM
Larry,

Please identify which of the TSBD female employees you think it is?
If you take out the absent staff, the people in groups on the 3rd and 4th floors, people who said they were elsewhere, people in large groups away from TSBD who testified to beign together and the people we can see in the photos with PM, the list gets very small....

My guess would be Geneva Hine ducked out the front.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 20, 2018, 01:13:08 AM
Anthony:

Any chance, since Frazier said he was talking to "Sarah" when Calvery ran up, and the Couch/Darnell film shows Calvery at the foot of the steps, that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on April 20, 2018, 03:46:36 AM
Hey Larry:   Good thing Peter Lemkin has all those practicers of the Deep Politics "ethos" over there on DPF and got rid of the troublemakers like myself (who happen to post correct evidence that disproved Lauren and Jim D)...Trust me, this isn't about somebody suffering wicked injustices for posting the truth against an ignorant, hypocritical majority while following the posted site rules...No...It is an obsessed member who refuses to understand the greater principles Jim, Peter, and Lauren embody...


You have to understand that posting sophisticated evidence that disproves 95% of the community on a major controversial issue is something that Peter and his sensibilities can't tolerate and it isn't just Peter banning somebody because he posts evidence that Peter's too stupid to understand...Dawn too...

The one thing it definitely isn't is power-abusing site authorities abusing their moderator power to not admit they were wrong...That is the one thing we know it couldn't be...

Well Brian, I certainly have difficulty trying to reconcile a stated agenda with actual DPF moderating practices. Case in point, the PrayerPerson discussion, that was relegated to the DPF BearPitForum, but yet when certain posters steered the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter thread into the PrayerPerson debate, it appeared as though moderation did not apply. But, enough about DPF, except I am still "concerned" as to why my access was blocked. Not banned, or put on moderation, as no rule violation warranted any action. So, after switching to another computer/IPA I was then able to access at will. But, after "signing on", and posting once or twice, all of a sudden that computer/IPA was knocked off-line, and site access ability was again lost. So, still investigating that situation. But, as stated, no need for tying up threads discussing another forum, and if need be, we can seek a seperate discussion venue.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 20, 2018, 05:44:03 PM
Larry:

The Prayer Man issue on the Deep Politics forum is not about the truth of the shadowy figure's identity...The issue is whether certain members, because they have a moderator, founding member, or administrator avatar, can shirk their own rules and the purpose of their website and operate outside their own posted sites rules as infallible members...

Lemkin is especially pathetic because he turned against me and made up non-existent rules in order to justify my banning...Lemkin said I was violating the Deep Political "ethos" the board was based on...What a pathetic liar...He obviously did that because he knew there was no site rule I had violated and needed to come up with a reason...The board rules very specifically state that a valid reason is needed to ban a long term member...Any intelligent person who watched the debate would see that the real reason was I had successfully shown that the moderators had mismanaged the board and not followed their own rules...The board is supposed to run by a very formal and intelligent set of democratic site rules...Dawn's reaction to this lynching? "I don't give a rat's ass"...There you see the true face of DPF and its dirty clique...

Lauren is a liar too...He pre-empted my banning by saying I was not being banned for my Prayer Man evidence...Any reading of the involved threads will see that my banning was solely based on the Prayer Man issue and Lauren is lying...It goes to show what a shallow-minded character he is that he would ban a person with much more intelligent talent than himself on the dishonest and unintelligent basis of "repeated behavior"...Again, any reading of the involved threads would see that 'repeated behavior' was my insisting that Lauren obey his own site rules as moderator in regard to the Prayer Man issue...Lauren spent over 2 years abusing his moderator power in order to not have to admit he was wrong on the Prayer Man issue and had abused the member who proved the correct evidence as his own rule #14 encourages...If you examine Lauren's moderation he never references the site rules like he is required to do...Lauren is a liar and his input was an exercise in avoiding the evidence each time it was brought up for over 2 years (because he knew he was wrong but didn't want to admit it)...Magda put a real ******* in charge of the forum and she is at fault...Magda, of course, agreed with Lauren that Prayer Man was Oswald 2 years ago shortly before my 3 month vacation from the site... Both Peter and Lauren complained about my "obsession" with the topic...Both of them being too stupid and dishonest to realize their failure to admit the correct evidence and obey their own site rules was the source of the problem...Magda allows Lauren to run the board like his own personal website...She is the one to blame...This issue was 100% based on Magda and Lauren abusing their site power in order not to admit they were both wrong on Prayer Man and therefore were running their site backwards according to their own rules...They all avoided the site rules in my banning because they knew they came in in my favor...

Any intelligent person will see that the problem arises from the fact Lauren isn't smart enough to evaluate evidence...He uses Jim DiEugenio as a guide to technical evidence and doesn't want to be exposed as being incompetent...Lauren got his meanest when members pointed out the rules he was violating...Magda allowed Lauren to delete and lock threads where members cited the rules and asked Lauren to obey them as those same rules require...Lauren was allowed to convert an issue where he was clearly in the wrong and abusing his moderator power way beyond its intended purpose to the victims being wrong and his never having to answer for his wrongdoing...He moderated the board backwards and against the rules...He managed to exploit the conflict of interest of the phony insider members and their need to not admit they were not up to snuff in living up to their own rules...The Prayer Man issue was converted to Lauren struggling not to expose his incompetency and abusing his moderator power...That's a complete destruction of the site's credibility and purpose but those insider phonies don't care as long as they are in charge...Dirty Jim D is very happy with this and congratulates the moderators for their dirty lynching after staying out of the discussion that proved he was wrong...Jim is now infallible thanks to Lauren and doesn't have to answer for his deliberate promotion of bad evidence and contemptuous violation of the DPF rules...

The DPF board isn't about credible discussion of evidence and determining the true facts of the JFK assassination...It is about serving the avatar-bearing members of DPF and their rank contempt for their own rules as overseen by one major dumb-ass and bully known as Lauren Johnson...The board is mis-labeled...It should be called the Jim DiEugenio fan club...Lauren doesn't know what he is doing and he shouldn't be moderator...Lauren moderates by serving Jim D and the other avatar-bearers and therefore has a permanent job...He's a low-intellect social media-type and popularity mugwump who is unfit for research oversight...Truth be damned...   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on April 24, 2018, 09:54:32 PM
As time flies, with all said and done
Be not surprised, should she be the one



(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-woman2.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on April 27, 2018, 01:47:14 PM
Below: I've cropped, enlarged & enhanced the crucial area of Chris Davidson's animated Gif.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ChrisEnhanced.gif)(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Enhancedchris.gif)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Denis Morissette on April 27, 2018, 04:00:27 PM
Impressive!

Below: I've cropped, enlarged & enhanced the crucial area of Chris Davidson's animated Gif.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ChrisEnhanced.gif)(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Enhancedchris.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on April 27, 2018, 05:58:09 PM
Thanks Duncan but your image from two years ago was sharper...

I can only work with what Chris made available in his original Gif.

I've sharpened the frames a little more and added a little bit of color to them.

The detail simply isn't there to enhance any further without degradation taking place.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwcolor.gif)
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 28, 2018, 10:12:24 PM
    Stancak responded to Graves on the Education Forum:


           
Quote
" I can have a look at the leg length problem in my next version of any work which will include Prayer Man.  People differ in the height of their inseam and my model appears to have the inseam high. I paid some attention to it, but in order to measure inseam height, one needs to measure besides the body length also the length of the inner leg from the sole of the foot to the perineum. This cannot be achieved from Lee Harvey Oswald photographs in which he wears loose pants, and in no case from Darnell still because it is blurred and does not show full legs. The leg-to-body ration varies from 45% to 50% in the population, and my model has a proportion which goes to the higher end of the range.

The exact posture of Prayer Man's legs is uncertain just because they cannot be seen reliably in any of the frames. So, I had to design a leg posture myself, and actually I have suggested two leg postures, one in 2016 and one more recently. I certainly can test another leg posture which may possibly appeal better to you. The Darnell model included 15 human figures and I spent time mostly with the new figures. "


This ruminating run-round of Stancak's is typical...He mouths the photo science terms of the issue but doesn't answer the point that is being made...What Stancak fails to answer is the fact his excessive inseam that is 2.5 inches longer than Frazier's has to contain a leg that is far beyond the parameters for tolerable variation...Stancak once again gets away with a non-answer that doesn't address the technical point that is being made...He fails to answer a provable fatal flaw in his model that dismisses his claim and by default proves ours...

What Stancak doesn't seem to realize is he has presented modeling tool measuring sticks with his figures...He has metered very precise height measurements for Frazier and Prayer Man at the tops of their heads that lock them in to the known heights for Oswald and Frazier...Stancak does not address that the step is a known 7 inches in height and when combined with the shown head height for Prayer Man must establish a very precise height for his Prayer Man figure...Plus we already know Oswald's general body proportions from photographs...

What Stancak is not answering here is the image on page 1 of that thread with the measuring stick metered heights for Frazier and Prayer Man doesn't provide any more wiggle room for reducing Prayer Man's height in order to adjust for the overly long inseam...Like I said in another post...Stancak's graphics are actually very precise in certain areas...Because of that Stancak has trapped himself with his own precision and locked himself into highly restricted boundaries of evidence that he can't get out of as easily as he pretends...

What Stancak is getting around answering in the above response is that Prayer Man's leg is too long in his graphic, not just his inseam...Stancak correctly points out that the real measure is not the inseam but the physical body length from the perineum to the heel...But after pointing out the correct forensic methodology he then ignores the fact that it is impossible for a leg to reach from Prayer Man's crotch, as shown in his graphic, to the heel of his foot planted on the step without being at least the length required to do that...

This is the science Graves was getting at but not articulating quite clearly enough...Stancak is still at the same impasse and after offering a ruminating voicing of the scientific problem involved he never quite gets around to answering the serious issue with his evidence...This has nothing to do with photos of Oswald showing his legs...Instead it has everything to do with Stancak's own height illustrations with correct height measurements assigned to both Frazier and Prayer Man...We may not have photos of Oswald to compare but we do have a very precise measurement of Prayer Man's height at 5 foot 9 as Stancak shows in his image...The question then stands if this measurement is very accurate (which it is), and Prayer Man's leg is 2.5 inches too long, then where is Stancak going to get his height reduction from?

If he reduces Prayer Man's leg by the necessary 2.5 inches he is going to have to lift Prayer Man's foot off the step by 2.5 inches and have it floating in the air...Andrej has made the mistake of being too accurate in his computer graphics and therefore trapping himself within his own scientific constraints...He has no wiggle room at the top of Prayer Man's head because his measuring meter shows a very precise 5 foot 9 inches for Prayer Man (Oswald's height)...And he can't use the differences in Oswald's claimed height because he will be going beneath the lower 5 foot 9 height...And he can't use Oswald's 5 foot 11 height because he has locked himself into Frazier's correct 6 foot 1/2 inch height and can't violate the height difference that is visible in Darnell...

In December 2016 I called Andrej out on the Education Forum and challenged him to post a computer graphic of Prayer Man with a foot on the step...I knew he wouldn't be able to make it work...I was banned without explanation when I made that challenge...I have been claiming for many years that Prayer Man would have to have grotesquely long legs to have a foot on the step...You can go back and read posts from over 3 years ago of me saying this...Stancak took 14 months but he finally put out his graphic of the Darnell frame...Let's get down to it...What is happening here is Andrej created computer graphics science that was accurate enough to prove what I was saying and refute Stancak's foot on the step claim...The only credible scientific conclusion that can be made from this is Stancak can't get a correctly-proportioned Prayer Man's leg to reach the step...He has refuted himself and proven my case...And, as his above reply shows, he has failed to credibly account for it when challenged...     

No one on the Education Forum asks Stancak where he is going to get those extra 2.5 inches from? And now Graves has lost the ability to ask...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 28, 2018, 11:15:23 PM
Quote
The location of Prayer Man with one foot down is determined not by his feet but by the relation of his figure to different landmarks in the doorway. These relationships dictate Prayer Man location, and there is just no wiggling room there. Prayer Man could not stand with both his feet on the top landing (in Darnell) because he would not fit the shape of Prayer Man body (being too tiny and having arms located higher compared to what is seen in Darnell) and more importantly, his right elbow would be too far from the edge of the red brick column. Of course, I have tested this variation in my pilot analyses, and will show it in the next work which will address Prayer Man's location and body height.


Stancak speaks Hungarian so I will give him a break for not speaking English as his first language...However the above statement has zero scientific validity...

Stancak is not correct that Prayer Man's body proportions as seen in Darnell preclude him from standing on the landing...There is absolutely no scientific credibility to that claim what so ever...

What Stancak is trying to say is that Prayer Man cannot be standing on the landing because he is visibly too short to be Oswald...And that his arms would be higher if Oswald were up on the landing...Obviously Stancak is restricting his scientific input to only that which conforms to Prayer Man being Oswald while ignoring everything else...That right there alone dismisses Stancak from credibility because valid science is always objective and goes by what is empirically seen and not by what is assumed...What Stancak is saying is he dismisses possibilities simply because they don't match Oswald while forgetting he has shown no proof that it is Oswald...This would usually disqualify a scientist from normal consideration amongst peers in any credible forum...

Stancak forgets that he still hasn't answered the overly long leg issue and that it is still the best determiner of whether Prayer Man is on the step...He's not registering that Prayer Man has to be on the landing because he himself has already proven Prayer Man can't be on the step by his failure to get that leg to reach...

His distance of the bricks from Prayer Man's arm claim is completely without merit...The answer to that is Prayer Man is on the landing and the distance from the bricks is what you see in Darnell...
 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 29, 2018, 10:45:26 PM
I wish somebody would tell Stancak that he's drawn a bent left leg over the radiator in his latest offering on the Education Forum...

I have seen a clearer version of Darnell and it shows that what Stancak is representing as a bent left leg in his Prayer Man graphic is actually the radiator in the front entrance window...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on April 30, 2018, 09:13:01 AM
I can only work with what Chris made available in his original Gif.

I've sharpened the frames a little more and added a little bit of color to them.

The detail simply isn't there to enhance any further without degradation taking place.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwcolor.gif)

For clarification, I only see what I see, and am unable to embrace Mr Davidson's "enhanced" PrayerWoman. And, I continue to base my conclusions about the image known as PrayerWoman/ PrayerPerson/PrayerMan on what I do see, un-enhanced, and a sufficient amount of eyewitness/occupant statements/testimony, including statements that LeeHarveyOswald was not on the TSBD entrance landing at the time.

That said, I maintain agreement with others that the image is that of a female, and base said agreement on my own conclusions, as well as testimony as to who was not present on the landing, added to testimony as to who was there. And, the most likely candidates for the image aka PrayerWoman are Ms SarahStanton and Ms PaulineSanders, with a slight edge favoring Ms Stanton, IMO.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 30, 2018, 03:57:05 PM

As far as the face, the best version of Davidson is Duncan's last image in his first post in this thread on page 1...That image contains enough data to make a definite conclusion by photogrammetry standards...In fact, when it was first posted on the Education Forum every single ROKC member who saw it agreed it appeared to be female...The Prayer Man group is getting away with a falsehood by saying we need a better scan...While it wouldn't hurt, the truth is the Davidson enhancement has enough resolution to make a definitive conclusion that Prayer Man is Stanton as Debra Conway agreed...

The woman seen in Davidson has to be Sarah Stanton and no one else because we have now confirmed that Gloria Calvery has reached the base of the steps in the Couch/Darnell clip...The Prayer Man people are deliberately ignoring that all known logic requires Calvery had just finished shouting "the president has been shot" on her way to the point at the base of the steps that she is seen at in Darnell...I have posted this many times and it has gotten no response from the Prayer Man people...Kamp responded saying I am lying about speaking with Calvery's son...It has to be Stanton for this reason and for the reason proper analysis will show Prayer Man has stocky body parts like "heavy-set" Sarah...It is my opinion that nobody has a right to ignore this evidence...

There can be only one conclusion, and that is Stanton has just finished her shouting run and Frazier has turned to Sarah and asked her what Calvery had just said...Prayer Man and Frazier face each other and never move in Darnell even though other people have moved significantly...That is because they are focused on each other and talking to each other...

Stancak knows he is in trouble with this so he went out and invented a new woman and placed her behind "Shelley" and Frazier...Not only is there no woman in that spot but there is also no Shelley on the landing at that juncture since the one thing Kamp did get right is the fact Shelley and Lovelady are seen going up the Elm St extension in Couch/Darnell...The face Stancak is calling Stanton is probably Sanders...Stancak desperately needs to create this artificial Stanton because he is claiming Frazier turned around 180 degrees and spoke to Stanton behind him after the Couch/Darnell clip ended...Because Stancak operates under the assumption that Prayer Man must be Oswald he is forced to do this and is ignoring our conclusive evidence...He is just doing an exercise in ignoring obvious evidence...

The strategy of the Prayer Man side is to ignore all evidence that refutes their claim and hijack all venues with corrupted biased moderators
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on April 30, 2018, 09:32:41 PM
Stancak has attempted a defense of his Darnell image computer graphics on the Education Forum...This is usually where people's eyes roll and they get bored with the minor details but it is also where Stancak finally loses if you are following this...So all one or two of you out there pay attention...

Stancak admits that his Prayer Man mannequin with a foot on the step doesn't work so he tries to solve it by offering two options...The first is his Prayer Man cartoon with a leg on the step and the second is a new version with both feet on the landing...Stancak then uses the logic that since the Prayer Man with both feet on the landing doesn't match certain features of Prayer Man in Darnell that proves Prayer Man can't have both feet on the landing...This is, of course, completely scientifically invalid and not based on any credible scientific methodology, but Stancak doesn't let that get in the way of his pseudo-analysis computer graphic science...

It is somewhat dumb-strikingly unbelievable how Stancak goes about in achieving this claim...What he does is take his Prayer Man mannequin and shrink him down by a visible percentage in order to get him to fit the size of Prayer Man in Darnell while having both feet on the landing...He then goes to show how his Prayer Man cartoon is too thin and therefore doesn't match the features of Prayer Man in Darnell...I'm not sure which is more unbelievable, that Stancak tries to get away with this Rube Goldberg methodology or that the Education Forum members stand back and don't notice?

What Stancak is doing is conditioning his readers that his Oswald-like 5 foot 9 cartoon mannequin is the main reference point and going measure by which to determine all things Prayer Man in photo analysis...He then uses the ROKC method of showing images of his cartoon mannequin interposed to varying degrees with the image of Prayer Man in Darnell...By doing this Stancak allows himself to slowly work his cartoon Prayer Man into a reference-able entity by which to make scientific determinations...But in reality Stancak's cartoon Prayer Man mannequin is actually something that has no basis in reality what so ever except being a slavic-like man pulled out of the options for male figures in his computer modeling program...Like ROKC, what Stancak is doing is repeating his cartoon Prayer Man image often enough in his presentations that he has now subtly, psychologically worked it in to being an accepted given that can now be used to discount other things...

Meanwhile the best representation for Prayer Man is the actual image of Prayer Man as seen in Darnell...The only valid computer graphics that can be used as proxy figures designed to run Prayer Man through scientific photo analysis tests are graphics that look the most similar to Prayer Man in Darnell...What Stancak has done is slowly switched the main reference-able image of Prayer Man from that seen in Darnell to his computer graphic cartoon mannequin...Stancak is now referring to these figures as being interchangeable, but then makes the important leap to discounting the real film image of Prayer Man by means of his artificial figure...When he does that he violates the rules of science because the original Darnell Prayer Man is always the more scientifically precise figure...In short, Stancak is trying to get away with murder scientifically...

Typical of Stancak and ROKC, he is looking through the telescope backwards and trying to discount the real Prayer Man by means of his admittedly-faulty Prayer Man mannequin...Stancak lines his shrunken mannequin with both feet on the landing up with the real Prayer Man in Darnell and says you can see the mannequin is obviously too thin so therefore Prayer Man can't be on the landing...He justifies the shrinking by saying you need to do that to match the heights of both figures...This, of course, is scientifically absurd but that doesn't stop Stancak who stretches legs and shrinks people to make his Oswald as Prayer Man theory fit...

As far as credible photo analysis science the way to go about this is to look at the Prayer Man figure in Darnell directly (or use original images as Gordon required)...What Stancak is trying to work around is that Prayer Man is as big as Prayer Man in Darnell on its own, separate from Stancak's computer modeling mannequin...I don't think Stancak realizes he has once again used graphics that are precise enough to refute his own claim...He's done that again here and I'll explain why...Since Stancak's mannequin is designed as an average build fit man, by overlapping it with Prayer Man in Darnell and showing Prayer Man is more stocky, what Stancak is actually showing (once again) is that his 5 foot 9 Oswald-like thin figure is too thin to fit Prayer Man's real dimensions as seen in the film image...So, in other words, he has refuted himself once again and proven our case for us while trying to do the opposite...What Stancak has really proven is Prayer Man's dimensions are too stocky to match Oswald's...

Oh, and by the way...Stancak still hasn't answered for the science that proves his 2.5 inch too long leg on his mannequin proves that Prayer Man can't be on the step...Stancak keeps telling us he'll try to solve that and let us know...But he's not answering to the science that shows there is no way to solve it once Stancak realizes he has trapped himself within the precision of the rest of his portal dimensions...As I said before...His portal dimensions are pretty accurate...If Stancak were a better scientist he would realize he has nowhere to go as far as finding that extra 2.5 inches...He has proven his Prayer Man doesn't fit...He's going to have to surrender to the fact it proves Prayer Man isn't on the step...

There's another thing most people don't notice...Both Kamp and Stancak do not use the best resolution images...When I was on the Education Forum part of the rules that were set was all debaters had to use the best images...Both Kamp and Stancak use blurry images because they are trying to hide the fact their claims don't match the visible images when closely examined...If Stancak were to use the best, sharpest images of Prayer Man it would be even more apparent that his cartoon figure does not match Prayer Man...

Finally, Stancak is showing a yellow outline of where he thinks Prayer Man's bent left leg is in Darnell...I have found a clearer image of Darnell and you can clearly see Stancak has outlined a bent left leg over what is clearly the radiator in the Depository lobby...

Stancak's shorter arm for a shorter person claim is garbage and if a professional photo analysis expert were to look at his claim he would see that Stancak has shrunken Prayer Man far more than the maximum 12 inch depth difference perspective shift would require...As I said before, Prayer Man's arms are longer and thicker not because he has a leg on the step that Stancak can't make work but because he is the thicker, stockier "heavy-set" Sarah Stanton - as we've more than proven...

This post should be cut & pasted to the Education Forum if they are really interested in the truth...


 
   
   
     
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 30, 2018, 09:37:43 PM
          This post should be cut & pasted to the Education Forum if they are really interested in the truth...

If the Education Forum wanted to know what you think they wouldn't have banned you.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 01, 2018, 05:33:51 PM
No, I didn't get banned for nothing on the Education Forum...I was banned because I was well in to the process of refuting the ROKC, Bart Kamp Prayer Man theory...There is a failure on that forum to respond to provably bad claims...As soon as someone starts to refute the Murphy theory they find themselves accused of vague violations and then have trouble posting...

Stancak's latest post is a good example of what passes for good research on the Education Forum:


Quote
The leg-to-body ratio in the mannequin I showed for the overlay study (and which I am not transporting into Sketchup) is 47% which is the middle of the normal range 45-50%. Of course, people can and do stand this way if they wish so. Please try it yourself. It would be actually unpleasant to stand with both legs straight and on the top landing as shown in my recent post because the person on the top landing would have to bend considerably towards his right in order to have his head aligned with the vertical pole of the aluminum door frame.

However, you apparently did not spot the differences between the two postures which make your top landing-both legs straight possibility very unlikely.

Are you now a new Saruman?
   

Whenever Stancak is confronted with a direct argument he never gives a straight answer...He immediately detours the discussion off in to one of his side track run-arounds...He does that here when confronted with the science that disproves his computer graphics...Stancak is being unfairly aided by having me banned from the board on false charges...By having my responses removed from visibility Stancak deliberately avoids answering the scientific points that refute his work...

Stancak is deliberately avoiding answering my point that his Prayer Man mannequin has an inseam and leg that is 2.5 inches longer than that of his Frazier mannequin...Stancak avoids answering this because he knows he can't...So he tries to wiggle in a leg length percentage of body argument to get around it...What gets ignored on the Education Forum, and no members ask Stancak, is he still hasn't accounted for not being able to get Prayer Man's leg to reach the step without cheating and stretching it...Stancak avoids recognizing that he has provided measuring stick gradations in his graphic...He won't give a direct answer to his trapping himself because he has a measuring stick measurement for Prayer Man in his graphic that goes from his foot to his head and therefore there is no place to reduce the figure by 2.5 inches...If he pulls Prayer Man down by that 2.5 inches then Prayer Man will be too short to match Darnell...This is why Stancak dishonestly shrinks Prayer Man's entire body in order to get around this...Stancak's run-around above is his way of avoiding giving a direct, scientific, honest answer to that and therefore he fails to provide adequate input to forum members...This is what passes for rigor and "quality of content" on the forum and those who demand academic rigor are scolded like children for being unacceptably "mean"...So surprise surprise, here we are again with the fatal flaws being spelled-out in credible detail and going unanswered once again while Stancak is praised by Education Forum members and I am referred to by disparaging names...

Typical of Stancak he follows-through with yet another crazy science non-sequitur by saying Prayer Man can't be standing on the landing because he would have to bend his head too much to line up with the aluminum window frame...Stancak says this on the Education Forum and no one challenges him on it...His claim there is, of course, absurd and has zero scientific merit...It is, once again, based on self-referencing his cartoon model as the new norm and putting it before the original image...Gordon chided me for not using original images (even though I was)...Yet here Stancak openly refers to a provably inaccurate computer model and uses it as reference to deny what is seen in the original Darnell image...All with no problem what so ever from the research community... Stancak is referring to his overhead cartoon graphic of the portal - but I have already proven it is inaccurate using the shadow line...

There is simply no validity to Stancak's claim that Prayer Man cannot be standing with both feet on the landing because his head would not line up with the aluminum frame...The answer to his false point here is the original Darnell image shows Prayer Man's orientation...Prayer Man is standing with both feet on the landing, as proven by Stancak's inability to get his leg to reach the step, and his head lines-up with the window frame...Correct photo science would use these original orientation points to determine where Prayer Man is in the portal...Stancak then enters the absurdity that it is actually more comfortable to stand in the awkward position of having one foot on the step while having your arms raised and looking in to a purse...I will post it again in case people still don't get it...Go to a set of steps and stand with one foot on the upper landing and one on the step and then hold both your arms up in front of you as if you are looking in to a purse...Then rotate 75 degrees to your left and see how comfortable it is...Your body will spur you to step up to the landing in order to overcome the feeling of uncomfort and lack of balance...Yet Stancak informs us the both feet on the landing position is actually the more uncomfortable and the rest of the site signs off on it with silence...(At least those who haven't been moderated anyway)...

If I were able to post on the Education Forum I would ask Stancak to give an honest answer to the Wiegman image...If you look at Stancak's own overhead graphic you can see that if he turned Prayer Man to his orientation in Wiegman with his shoulders squared to landing that Prayer Man would pull his body over the step as body behavior requires...I have posted this numerous times and it was ignored...I'll post it again...If you go to some steps and square your shoulders like Prayer Man in Wiegman and then place a foot on the step from the landing you body will center over the step due to it placing its weight on that foot...In the posture where the shoulders are squared that will bring the shoulder line over the step like I showed on my Prayer Woman Facebook page...By Stancak's own illustration Prayer Man's left shoulder and side would then be illuminated by sunlight as shown in his graphic...Stancak is not being truthful...The reason he didn't do a similar graphic for Prayer Man in Wiegman as he did for Darnell is because he knew he would have refuted himself even more badly than he did in Darnell...If he properly illustrated Prayer Man in Wiegman according to his squared shoulders Prayer Man's left side would be illuminated by sun...Also with squared shoulders it is extremely awkward to have a foot back up on the landing - yet, extraordinarily, Stancak claims it is perfectly comfortable and the better position...Not to mention being even more awkward for the 75 degree turn to Darnell...Graves is a happy puppy and misinterpreted my squared shoulders argument...What I just posted is the correct one and if I could confront Stancak directly on the Education Forum I would ask him to please answer it...This evidence doesn't need a new graphic to answer...It can be answered via the images already shown in his Darnell graphic...

Bart Kamp is obviously afraid of information that he knows disproves him so he is trying to take advantage of unfair censorship and remove it from the site...   

     
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 01, 2018, 11:17:00 PM
Exactly Larry...All Stancak is really doing is taking computer graphic images of people the way he would like them to look and placing them in a re-created Depository portal...But if you look at what I wrote, the legitimate scientific aspects of his models actually come in against him when properly analyzed...

Look at what Education Forum moderator Mark Knight wrote in the Prayer Man thread:   


Quote
The results do not CONCLUSIVELY make Prayer Man Lee Harvey Oswald. But they certainly make the possibility of Prayer Man being Oswald a lot more likely.

I like your work, Andrej.


This is a prime example of the problem with the Education Forum...Its moderators are biased towards the Prayer Man issue and automatically come in in favor of Stancak's claims no matter how badly they are flawed...I have just written literally pages of scientifically valid refuting arguments of evidence that even Stancak admitted were correct...Moderator Knight ignores this proven evidence and sides with Stancak and his garbage graphics despite this... 

Apparently the level of scientific rigor that moderator Knight practices on the Education Forum does not exclude ignoring proof that Prayer Man's height is provably too short to be Oswald...Just like we never said a word...

No one on the Education Forum notices that Stancak's mannequin's head is turned 70 degrees from the direction he is facing in Wiegman but in his overhead graphic it is only turned 30 degrees...

Stancak's "science" is garbage and is based on trying to force computer graphics cartoon images of male figures over the top of images of Sarah Stanton in Darnell...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 01, 2018, 11:26:53 PM
In reply, and still getting used to this format, LarryTrotter posted:

As I recall, some years back now, probably about 2013, I read a claim on another forum that the virtually impossible to identify image seen in shadow on the Elm St entrance landing to the Texas School Book Depository was actually accused Lone Gunman Assassin LeeHarveyOswald.

For various reasons, I failed to see any validity for said claim, especially being made some 50 years after the 11/22/'63 assassination of USP JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr, and critical wounding of TG JohnBowdenConnallyJr. It just doesn't seem possible for LHO to have been among several occupants, most, if not all who knew him, or at least recognized him, and yet after 50 years to then be "discovered" standing on the landing as the shooting occurred, and therefore could not have been a LGA.

To me, the image as viewable, appears more likely female and not male, but there is sufficient landing area occupants/eyewitnesses that testified that LHO was not on the landing at the time of filming within seconds of the shots being fired.

But, there is more evidence that the pictured/filmed image is not LHO, as DPD Motorcycle Officer MarrionLewisBaker, along with TSBD Building Superintendent RoySansomTruly testified that they encountered LHO on the 2nd floor, at the lunchroom, at about 90 seconds after the last shot. And, he was there when they reached said floor.

To claim that the image is of a male is one thing, but to promote the LeeHarveyOswald is PrayerManTheory is to me in defiance of common sense. Far too much evidence indicates otherwise.

That said, I base my conclusion about PrayerWoman on what little I see, added to known area occupants/eyewitnesses testimony regarding the steps/landing area at or about 12:30pm CST on 11/22'63. And, said conclusion indicates to me that Ms PaulineRebmanSanders and Ms SarahDeanStanton are  the two most likely candidates, with a slight edge to Ms Stanton as PrayerWoman.

That said, I have yet to place any accuracy and/or validity to any "produced picture enhancement" that I have seen so for. But I do wonder, as I wander, if any effort has and/or can be made to "enhance" the shaded entrance landing area as seen in the Tina Towner Film of the JFK Sr Motorcade as it turns onto Elm St just seconds before the shots were fired.

For clarification, I make no claim to be the first to dispute the LHO as PM Theory. And, I am confident that I am not. However, I do not recall ever not disputing said theory, and I am confident of that as well.

If you read the original thread on the EF I think most of your queries could be answered Larry, the why now and what have you. Basically the theory is not constricted by testimony, you seem to class testimony as solid evidence and thus proof for PM not being Oswald whereas modern detectives have rejected such notions, they're going in the oppositite direction, good enough to support a case in court sure but to find the truth...

Lunchroom encounter is not set in stone, both Truly and Baker are human and stories can stray from facts with just the slightest provocation.

I don't know how you see a woman in Darnell, you'd have to explain it.
From your last statement above it seems that you've never even given the PM theory any credit at all, ever, even before checking the testimony?

Do you think it's possible that BWF(the only one there of real significance) was convinced that he might have seen LHO on the steps minutes affter the shots instead of during the motorcade? You think Fritz could manage that on his own?  That's all it would take.

"To claim that the image is that of a male is one thing...", to me it's the only thing that and the fact that it looks enough like him for this to continue.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 01, 2018, 11:48:45 PM
Brian,
Weigman shows PM facing the front, shoulders square, yes, then Darnell shows him angled, so his body moved obviously. But you keep saying that PM would have to have put a foot down... Why? Why can't he be on the steps already in Wiegman and put a foot up to the landing for Darnell?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 01, 2018, 11:53:33 PM
Brian,
Weigman shows PM facing the front, shoulders square, yes, then Darnell shows him angled, so his body moved obviously. But you keep saying that PM would have to have put a foot down... Why? Why can't he be on the steps already in Wiegman and put a foot up to the landing for Darnell?

If you read what I'm writing that was already explained...If Prayer Man was on the step in Wiegman he would be illuminated by the sun plane Stancak shows in his graphics...This was already spelled-out in clear detail in my posts...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 01, 2018, 11:58:26 PM
You also said his shadow was a foot off... wth?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 02, 2018, 12:00:53 AM
Reporter with his leg up in Murray
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-B3gmrtFRYmU/U9jnYwq3juI/AAAAAAAARjs/EfgjtU-QlNY/s1600/Murray_TSBD3.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 02, 2018, 12:10:06 AM
If you were following my arguments...If you take Prayer Man in Wiegman and place his body over the step like it would be when his weight shifted to the lower leg, when you square his shoulders in that position on the step like Prayer Man does in Wiegman, his left side would be illuminated by the sun you see in your Murray image...

I have yet to see anyone answer this correct argument...
   
Also, the Murray image is probably pretty closely aligned with the sun/shade line...Which means Frazier would have the west wall shadow on his right side as seen in Darnell...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 02, 2018, 12:12:00 AM
If you read the original thread on the EF I think most of your queries could be answered Larry, the why now and what have you. Basically the theory is not constricted by testimony, you seem to class testimony as solid evidence and thus proof for PM not being Oswald whereas modern detectives have rejected such notions, they're going in the oppositite direction, good enough to support a case in court sure but to find the truth...

Lunchroom encounter is not set in stone, both Truly and Baker are human and stories can stray from facts with just the slightest provocation.

I don't know how you see a woman in Darnell, you'd have to explain it.
From your last statement above it seems that you've never even given the PM theory any credit at all, ever, even before checking the testimony?

Do you think it's possible that BWF(the only one there of real significance) was convinced that he might have seen LHO on the steps minutes affter the shots instead of during the motorcade? You think Fritz could manage that on his own?  That's all it would take.

"To claim that the image is that of a male is one thing...", to me it's the only thing that and the fact that it looks enough like him for this to continue.
Mr Pollard, I was about 245 miles away from DealeyPlaza at 12:30pm, CST on 11/22/'63, so I did not witness the event, but I remember hearing about it within minutes of the occurrence.. So, considering there is no eyewitness testimony, and several eyewitnesses were available, that places the accused LoneGunmanAssassin, LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Elm St entrance landing at the time, added to what I do see, along with testimony as to who was there, is the basis for my conclusion. To me, it appears as though it took about half a century for someone to decide an image of an un-identified person is LHO. The LHO as PrayerMan Theory to me defies common sense.

You sir, do not know what I have studied and what I haven't, but FYI, I spent a great deal of effort on the PrayerPerson subject, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter. I remain committed to my "conclusions" that the PrayerPerson image represents a female, then employed at the TSBD, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter as it occurred and do not believe the "HoaxTheory".


What are "most of my queries"?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 02, 2018, 12:16:43 AM
I don't know if it's a woman or a man, but there is no good reason to think that it's Lee Harvey Oswald.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 02, 2018, 12:25:55 AM
   If you were following my arguments...If you take Prayer Man in Wiegman and place his body over the step like it would be when his weight shifted to the lower leg, when you square his shoulders in that position on the step like Prayer Man does in Wiegman, his left side would be illuminated by the sun you see in your Murray image...


     I have yet to see anyone answer this correct argument...


Sorry Brian but if that is real shadow hitting Lovelady then anyone to the west of him would be in complete shadow and I see no way around that.
If the mock up has the shadow line correct however then I could see your point but I don't see how you can have it both ways.
Trying to isolate the image with the reporter with the shadow on his back... posted the one above because you said you hadn't noticed it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 02, 2018, 12:49:04 AM
Mr Pollard, I was about 245 miles away from DealeyPlaza at 12:30pm, CST on 11/22/'63, so I did not witness the event, but I remember hearing about it within minutes of the occurrence.. So, considering there is no eyewitness testimony, and several eyewitnesses were available, that places the accused LoneGunmanAssassin, LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Elm St entrance landing at the time, added to what I do see, along with testimony as to who was there, is the basis for my conclusion. To me, it appears as though it took about half a century for someone to decide an image of an un-identified person is LHO. The LHO as PrayerMan Theory to me defies common sense.

You sir, do not know what I have studied and what I haven't, but FYI, I spent a great deal of effort on the PrayerPerson subject, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter. I remain committed to my "conclusions" that the PrayerPerson image represents a female, then employed at the TSBD, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter as it occurred and do not believe the "HoaxTheory".


What are "most of my queries"?

Simply, the Darnell frames we have available now were not there before 2013. You can see it evolving in  the thread on EF, it went from "it couldn't be him could it?" to "it has to be him" . Not sure but I think Murphy was still "new" to the research scene, so only took him ten(if that) years? Still not sure what point you are making though, I just found something new the other day. What is your point?

You did say you never gave it much credit, " never not refuted it" that shows a clear bias does it not? I took you at your word is all.
Do you have any evidence that discounts the idea that PM could get to the lunchroom before Baker did in less than a minute?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 02, 2018, 01:29:27 AM

    Disinfo???


     No one on the Education Forum notices or asks Stancak why Prayer Man's leg in his graphic where he has a foot on the step is 47% of his body length but in his Oswald comparison image with both feet flat his leg is 40% of the length of his body...
 

The mock up is not perfect but hasn't it been accepted that if PM was on the landing he would be around 5'3, well then if he was in fact on the step then around 5'9 should also be acceptable, there's no need for an accurate drawing to see that, what do you think is going to happen when he corrects the leg/torso Brian? Here's what it won't do, it will not prove that PM cannot have one foot on the landing.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 02, 2018, 01:54:34 AM
The mock up is not perfect but hasn't it been accepted that if PM was on the landing he would be around 5'3, well then if he was in fact on the step then around 5'9 should also be acceptable, there's no need for an accurate drawing to see that, what do you think is going to happen when he corrects the leg/torso Brian? Here's what it won't do, it will not prove that PM cannot have one foot on the landing.
No...That 5 foot 3 figure is something that Gilbride and Stancak determined from their analyses...I disagree and say the images make Prayer Man about 5 foot 5 or 6 inches if both feet are on the landing...I sent inquiries to the Texas Bureau Of Public Safety and even tried a famous Texan private detective to try to get records of Sarah Stanton's height and came up with a bust...I will bet my monkey's uncle that Stanton will prove to be 5 foot 5 or 6 in height...

I have already proven that Stancak has provided very accurate measuring sticks that precisely measure Prayer Man's height to be 5 foot 9 inches - the same as Oswald...You don't seem to grasp what I have proven...Since Stancak has measured a very precise 5 foot 9 for Prayer Man and publicly admitted he has added an extra 2 inches to the leg that he needs to subtract, that means he has disproven Prayer Man being on the step...It means he can't make Prayer Man's leg reach the step without adding an extra 2 inches that isn't there...You haven't adequately responded to what I have already proven...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 02, 2018, 02:03:54 AM

 You're not answering what I wrote...I'm not sure if you aren't doing that deliberately...I didn't mention Lovelady...I was talking about Prayer Man and how the sun/shade line you showed in Murray proved Prayer Man would be lit by that same sun you see in Murray if he was on the steps with shoulders squared...

Try answering what I wrote next time...

I didn't reply to your response exactly because that Murray image does not show where PM was or the shadowline, it's not even close, I saw no point in it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 02, 2018, 02:13:26 AM
Barry:  The Murray image shows where the shadow was in relation to Prayer Man in Wiegman which was not too long before...It is valid to use for comparison since the sun is still well in to the west portion of the steps and could not  be less that what was there during Darnell...

Your response is not valid because we can compare where Prayer Man was in Wiegman to the Murray image since we can see Prayer Man's position in Wiegman...Plus Stancak has Prayer Man on the step so we know where Stancak is suggesting Prayer Man is...If you then follow what I wrote, placing Prayer Man's body over the step like his body would do if his weight were put on the lower leg and squaring his shoulders would bring Prayer Man's left side in to the sun you see in Murray...I think you know this and are playing dumb...

I have provided enough information to prove this...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 02, 2018, 02:39:21 AM

No...That 5 foot 3 figure is something that Gilbride and Stancak determined from their analyses...I disagree and say the images make Prayer Man about 5 foot 5 or 6 inches if both feet are on the landing...I sent inquiries to the Texas Bureau Of Public Safety and even tried a famous Texan private detective to try to get records of Sarah Stanton's height and came up with a bust...I will bet my monkey's uncle that Stanton will prove to be 5 foot 5 or 6 in height...


I have already proven that Stancak has provided very accurate measuring sticks that precisely measure Prayer Man's height to be 5 foot 9 inches - the same as Oswald...You don't seem to grasp what I have proven...Since Stancak has measured a very precise 5 foot 9 for Prayer Man and publicly admitted he has added an extra 2 inches to the leg that he needs to subtract, that means he has disproven Prayer Man being on the step...It means he can't make Prayer Man's leg reach the step without adding an extra 2 inches that isn't there...You haven't adequately responded to what I have already proven...

According to Duncan on page one, five foot three is also the height John Mytton calculated. You've proven that Stanack has measured PM precisely to be 5'9 in his drawing you mean? Anyway it stacks up in reality~ 5'3 on landing is equal to around  5'9 on the step just because he cannot draw it correctly doesn't make it false, it's just a cartoon remember?
No I don't get all of it, you seem to believe he's involved in trickery, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt since he is clearly no pro, how did you get five six?
Some of us have to cut through part of what you write Brian, not everyone is interested in what goes on elsewhere among you know who.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 02, 2018, 02:53:23 AM
Barry:  The Murray image shows where the shadow was in relation to Prayer Man in Wiegman which was not too long before...It is valid to use for comparison since the sun is still well in to the west portion of the steps and could not  be less that what was there during Darnell...

Your response is not valid because we can compare where Prayer Man was in Wiegman to the Murray image since we can see Prayer Man's position in Wiegman...Plus Stancak has Prayer Man on the step so we know where Stancak is suggesting Prayer Man is...If you then follow what I wrote, placing Prayer Man's body over the step like his body would do if his weight were put on the lower leg and squaring his shoulders would bring Prayer Man's left side in to the sun you see in Murray...I think you know this and are playing dumb...

I have provided enough information to prove this...

Why would I play dumb with you, for PM's sake?  No, not even for Devil's advocate, not worth it. I just cannot see how any part of a man in PM's filmed position would be seen in that Murray image whether on the step or landing, he would be completely hidden. You need more feedback I think, I'll leave it for other opinions.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 02, 2018, 05:06:14 AM
Simply, the Darnell frames we have available now were not there before 2013. You can see it evolving in  the thread on EF, it went from "it couldn't be him could it?" to "it has to be him" . Not sure but I think Murphy was still "new" to the research scene, so only took him ten(if that) years? Still not sure what point you are making though, I just found something new the other day. What is your point?

You did say you never gave it much credit, " never not refuted it" that shows a clear bias does it not? I took you at your word is all.
Do you have any evidence that discounts the idea that PM could get to the lunchroom before Baker did in less than a minute?
It is not a question of bias, Mr Pollard. After careful study, I reached a conclusion, and since I never concluded "agreement", therefor "never not refuted it" applies. Quite simple actually. Also, since I have reached a conclusion that there is no "PM", I see no need for any evidence about any "PM" activity.

Thanks for the conversation, but I stand by my stated conclusion, and if you wish to express disagreement, that is fine. But, admittedly, I am not sure of your conclusions about said subject matter. However, it appears as though you agree with the LeeHarveyOswald as PrayerManTheory, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter is a HoaxTheory. And that sir, is your privilege. But, without sufficient reliable provable evidence, I see no indication of changing my stated conclusions.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 02, 2018, 04:18:52 PM
According to Duncan on page one, five foot three is also the height John Mytton calculated. You've proven that Stanack has measured PM precisely to be 5'9 in his drawing you mean? Anyway it stacks up in reality~ 5'3 on landing is equal to around  5'9 on the step just because he cannot draw it correctly doesn't make it false, it's just a cartoon remember?
No I don't get all of it, you seem to believe he's involved in trickery, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt since he is clearly no pro, how did you get five six?
Some of us have to cut through part of what you write Brian, not everyone is interested in what goes on elsewhere among you know who.
Nope, you still haven't answered what I wrote...

If you look at my reply #2 on page 1 of this thread you will see Stancak's graphic of just Prayer Man and Frazier isolated in the Darnell image...As I have already instructed you, please observe the graded measuring sticks Stancak has inserted in to the graphic...I assume these are scaled metering devices gotten from the options in the computer modeling program Stancak used for the image...

If you observe the measuring stick for Prayer Man it starts at the step and goes to the top of his head...You can't fudge this like you are doing Barry and the measuring stick makes it very clear that Stancak has precisely established an exact height for Prayer Man of 5 foot 9 inches, which just so happens to be the exact height for Lee Harvey Oswald...Your answers mull around and make general statements but they never quite get around to answering the precise evidence I am showing here...That seems to be a universal condition for the Prayer Man people who seem to suddenly develop a weird type of research comprehension syndrome when you point out irrefutable debunking evidence...

So if you look at the measuring stick in my reply #2 on page 1 there is no doubt it locks in a very precise 5 foot 9 for Prayer Man...So we now consider that Stancak has admitted his leg for Prayer Man is out of scale and too long by at least 2 inches...My point remains unanswered by yourself...Where then is Stancak going to get the extra 2.5 inches in reduction he plans to do sometime in the future? Hopefully he won't take over a year to do this with Gordon's blessing like he did for this graphic...

The reason I post what is going on elsewhere is because the Murphy cult has hijacked the two main research forums...Instead of answering the credible science I am posting here they allow the offenders to violate their own site rules and the ethics of honest debate by targeting you with personal defamation instead of answering your evidence...Both the Education Forum and Deep Politics have been hijacked by the Murphy gang and posting the correct evidence on Prayer Man that proves he is too short to be Oswald will get you banned with the offenders having the last cowardly and untrue word on you after you can't defend yourself...On a site where a new rule has been established of no fighting or personal attacks the administrator of the board then comes in and violates his own directive while ignoring my refuting evidence that has been linked to his board...

I have literally pointed-out that Stancak's Prayer Man on the step has a leg that Stancak admitted was 47% of his body length...Stancak has also posted an image of his computer graphic mannequin for Prayer Man juxtaposed with Oswald with both feet flat on the ground with a leg that is 40% of his body length...Barry you seem to be very forgiving of Stancak but in the real science world this substantial discrepancy is fatal to research credibility and a rogue violation of the science Mr Stancak pretends...Stancak is obviously just pulling this stuff out of thin air and is a fraud who is just creating what he wishes to see and tweaking his images...Not a single one of the members on the Education Forum noticed this or ever bothered recognizing it or its affect on the issue even after I pointed it out...The Education Forum moderators do not mind such radical failures in accuracy...Post the correct Prayer Man evidence and they will ride your back on every stitch even when your evidence is sound...

Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...She and Frazier are standing with both feet on the landing and when directly compared in height shows that Stanton is about 5 foot 5 or 6 when measured in relation to the 6 foot 1/2 inch Frazier...
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 03, 2018, 06:57:12 PM
On the Education Forum because Gordon has announced my banning the usual suspects are now assembling in the Prayer Man thread and enjoying their victory by censorship...Those who correctly challenged the Murphy Prayer Man theory are now unable to post and the playing field is now skewed in favor of Stancak and the Murphy theorists by means of filtering the opponents...

David Josephs presented an interesting graphic that shows the shadow line in Darnell and pretty much confirms my placement of the sun/shade border...Because Josephs and Stancak are in league that Oswald is Prayer Man, neither notices that Josephs' confirmation of my shadow line proves that Stancak's shadow line in his overhead graphic is off by as much as a foot...Stancak continues on presenting his overhead graphic as legitimate and accurate and the moderation that demands very strict adherence to "requirements" at the threat of banning continues to not notice this fatal flaw in Stancak's graphic that misrepresents a major component of the forensic details in Darnell...After all, people who ignore huge scientific errors that constitute disqualifying failure at a scientific level are not "argumentative" so therefore they compliment each other for their friendly tolerance...

David Josephs had detoured the topic in to one of his classic potpourri's of mixed up irrelevancies that drag the thread away from the on-point evidence...Stancak is courting him because then both of them, with the assistance of Gordon's moderation, can avoid answering how Stancak's 3 inch error over the length of Prayer Man's leg refutes his own thesis and proves Prayer Man could not have had a leg on the step...You have to remember David Josephs was over at the Deep Politics board saying he demanded precise methodology in claims...When you show him that methodology he then acts like a school boy on a school play yard moving the goal posts as the bullies decide how the softball game will be run...Low and behold after Gordon's restriction of the opposition Stancak seems to have developed amnesia over his 3 inch error on the length of Prayer Man's leg...The Prayer Man supporters all come in DiEugenio-style and compliment Stancak on his impressive work...

Stancak fails to disclose that the placement of Prayer Man forward in the landing due to the sunlight being on his hand was a forensic concept that was entirely developed by myself...Stancak is now adopting it and pushing it in the evidence without honestly crediting me for it...

Stancak continues to ignore, with the Education Forum moderation's assistance, that any computer graphic done for the Wiegman image will refute his foot on the step claim...If Stancak shows a cartoon for Prayer Man with his shoulders squared to the landing and his body centered over the step, as it would be if his weight went to the foot on the step, then his mannequin would pull in to the sunlight Stancak shows in his own graphic...He would refute himself once again...The Education Forum moderation sided with Stancak on this saying people were putting an unfair burden on him to create these difficult graphics...However, if the EF moderation were paying competent attention to what was being argued here it would realize this evidence could be seen in the current overhead graphic Stancak has shown for Darnell...Like the 3 inch too long leg, Stancak has refuted himself here once again and none of the thread-dominating pro Murphy posters even notice...
   
Over on Deep Politics David Josephs is trying to force a court room standard because he is trying to restrict the obvious nuances in the evidence that all point towards the lunch room encounter being real...David is a real cheater because he is pretending he is demanding that legal standard in order to sharpen the evidence when it is obvious that he is doing it to exclude evidence he knows is true...David is free to post here...He won't do it because he knows he'll lose hard...David is avoiding answering what a voice stress analysis test would do for Baker's testimony...DiEugenio too...What a dishonest gang of boys...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 04, 2018, 04:50:26 AM
It is not a question of bias, Mr Pollard. After careful study, I reached a conclusion, and since I never concluded "agreement", therefor "never not refuted it" applies. Quite simple actually. Also, since I have reached a conclusion that there is no "PM", I see no need for any evidence about any "PM" activity.

Thanks for the conversation, but I stand by my stated conclusion, and if you wish to express disagreement, that is fine. But, admittedly, I am not sure of your conclusions about said subject matter. However, it appears as though you agree with the LeeHarveyOswald as PrayerMan Theory, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter is a Hoax Theory. And that sir, is your privilege. But, without sufficient reliable provable evidence, I see no indication of changing my stated conclusions.


Larry, make no mistake your input is most welcome, here's my position. I'm sure it's a man, that he's standing close to the southern edge of the landing, perhaps on the step (but I'd like to see that proven), seems to be drinking from something in Weigman, from the Darnell frames it looks enough like LHO to make me wonder too but I've never claimed it's him, in fact I found someone in the Cook film outside the TSBD that matches up nicely enough. So hardly a disciple but dispite all the argument against the very idea I still wonder because I believe it is actually possible for him to be somewhere other than the SN.
One of the major things against it beiing LHO is the fact that no observation in the entire photographic research history of this case seems, to me at least, to stand up today, so the odds are very slim but I'd still like put a little money on it being good.

You did say that the Lunchroom encounter was part of the reason why you doubted it, I then asked you if this person could get there before Baker and you said you won't even consider it but you already have, just not carefully enough. Even if the frames he is last seen are around 35secs post Z313 that still gives him 45-50secs to get up there and that's assuming that the 90secs is accuarate which yes I do not take that seriously, like the pigeons.., or Jackson, Brennan, Jarman and Co, Holland, Bowers etc, etc(actually from that group Baker and Bowers are probably the best but completely accurate? No chance).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 04, 2018, 05:40:17 AM
Brian, thanks for your last response, I've no clue about drawing figures and realistic ratios, tbh I bailed on that class hated it and I haven't paid much attention many observations on that part of this but I took in some and I'm with you in essence because I've said it doesn't look correct to me either(for me it's that bent leg from Darnell), okay I just looked it up, one good hit on the net with feedback says 47% is a good average, so are you saying that Oswalds was closer to 40%?  Also why can't he drop 2" off the leg and add it to the body?Because of Oswald's own known leg/body ratio?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 04, 2018, 06:16:38 AM
Because it would violate the body proportions as you say... The torso you see in the image with the overly long leg is correctly proportioned...I hope you understand that the very fact alone that we are talking about Stancak adjusting the mannequins to make them fit shows how he is winging it and making it up as he goes along and that is why he is using cartoon graphics in the first place because he can make them do what he wants...Stancak cheats...There are clearer versions of Darnell...I've seen them...The reason he uses this less clear one is because the clearer one shows that there's no bent leg there...In the clearest shots you can see the radiator in the spot where Stancak's bent leg would be proving beyond a doubt that his one step down theory is impossible...These are not honest or honorable researchers we are dealing with here...Stancak has already seen this which is why he offers to pose a mannequin with both feet on the landing...

Stancak shows a flat-footed mannequin standing next to a photo of Oswald...The leg length on that mannequin is approximately 43% of Prayer Man's body so Stancak varies from 47% to 43% and no one notices...That variation is fatal when attempting computer graphics that are supposed to show differences of less than an inch...It means he is adjusting to fit wherever he can force it to look like Oswald:

       
Barry: Do you understand that the image Stancak shows in the above link where he shows that Oswald's leg was 43% of his body length (as shown in the photo of Oswald) proves that there is no scientific possibility to adjust the leg on Stancak's mannequin in the foot on the step graphic? Do you understand that once Stancak proves that Oswald's leg was 43% of his body length (as he proved with his photo of Oswald) that there is no possibility of making any adjustments to his mannequin with a foot on the step because at that point he has exceeded the parameters that would make it possible for Oswald's foot to reach the step?

Prayer Man is not 5 foot 2 in the Darnell image...Prayer Man is slightly above Frazier's chin which would make him 5 foot 5... This is important because if a 5 foot 5 Prayer Man theoretically had a foot on the step then when he rose to the landing he would be about 6 foot high and equal with Frazier - which would also disqualify him from being Oswald...   
         
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 04, 2018, 02:31:15 PM
Larry, make no mistake your input is most welcome, here's my position. I'm sure it's a man, that he's standing close to the southern edge of the landing, perhaps on the step (but I'd like to see that proven), seems to be drinking from something in Weigman, from the Darnell frames it looks enough like LHO to make me wonder too but I've never claimed it's him, in fact I found someone in the Cook film outside the TSBD that matches up nicely enough. So hardly a disciple but dispite all the argument against the very idea I still wonder because I believe it is actually possible for him to be somewhere other than the SN.
One of the major things against it beiing LHO is the fact that no observation in the entire photographic research history of this case seems, to me at least, to stand up today, so the odds are very slim but I'd still like put a little money on it being good.

You did say that the Lunchroom encounter was part of the reason why you doubted it, I then asked you if this person could get there before Baker and you said you won't even consider it but you already have, just not carefully enough. Even if the frames he is last seen are around 35secs post Z313 that still gives him 45-50secs to get up there and that's assuming that the 90secs is accuarate which yes I do not take that seriously, like the pigeons.., or Jackson, Brennan, Jarman and Co, Holland, Bowers etc, etc(actually from that group Baker and Bowers are probably the best but completely accurate? No chance).
Barry, well before I posted and/or expressed any conclusion regarding PrayerPerson, I developed said conclusion. And, by studying research as well as locating occupant information, then locating and viewing statements, affidavits, and sworn testimony, is how I was able to reach my conclusion. But, as stated, I make no claim to be the first to conclude PrayerPerson to be PrayerWoman. The film/still offers some, but very little identification information. However, I base my conclusion on PrayerPerson being in the corner of the quite small area, and with a slight to their right head turn and basically in line with the camera facial features. But again, my conclusion is 90% testimony based.

As for the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter, DPD Officer ML Baker is approaching the entrance and PrayerPerson is still there. So, since it is my conclusion that PrayerPerson is actually PrayerWoman, I see no reason to consider the possibility of the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter involving PrayerPerson. But, the polite conversation is appreciated.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 04, 2018, 10:08:10 PM
Brian, you are posting far too many links to the Education Forum. It needs to stop now.
You need to find a solution for your inability to stream your own images or referenced images to this website.
I'm sure you have the financial means to get this very simple low cost problem fixed.
Member's should not need to go elsewhere to view every image that you reference.

(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 06, 2018, 04:59:45 PM
Stancak is right back to his pseudo-science again...He realizes his previous computer graphics were bogus because of the overly long leg he made on Prayer Man so he's trying to get around it...Stancak presents a very scientifically loose 7 1/2 inch block designed to represent the length of Oswald's head...He then crudely places 7 1/2 of these roughly-sized blocks over Oswald body and claims it represents an accurate measurement of Oswald's body size...Stancak then goes to Darnell and re-creates this crude measuring device over Prayer Man's body saying it is an equivalent...He then claims this proves Prayer Man's foot is on the step...

As I mentioned before, Stancak is using a type of brainwashing technique where he repeatedly places images of Oswald or references to Oswald's height in to the Darnell frame...This completely scientifically invalid method is a crude type of conditioning device that fools the brain into believing Prayer Man is 5 foot 9 and is therefore Oswald...What Stancak doesn't tell you in this latest offering is that he has no visible evidence that Prayer Man's feet go below the landing in Darnell since you can't see them...Stancak is trying to say that a simple body ratio of Prayer Man's head extrapolated to the rest of his body proves by body proportions that Prayer Man's foot reaches the step...

The flaw in what Stancak presents is that it assumes Prayer Man is Oswald and therefore all figures in the Prayer Man position must conform to the height ratio he has established using Oswald's head in comparison to the rest of his body as the standard...What is wrong with this is the head/body proportion ratio for Oswald does not apply to everyone...A person like Sarah Stanton could be shorter and stockier and still have a 7 1/2 inch head size...In other words, Stancak once again offers a totally uncredible scientific claim that is easily refuted and claims it finally solves the issue...Transposing Oswald's head to body length ratio on to others is not a valid scientific method...As I said before, the only head to body size ratio science that can be used for Prayer Man is Prayer Man's as seen in Darnell (Though as it turns out Sarah Stanton's could also be used since it is her)...

Stancak makes more serious scientific mistakes in his latest offering...His head size lines that he overlays on the portal are not placed according to accurate scientific perspective dimensions...Look at Stancak's blue dotted measuring lines...They are not accurately shown...There are two perspective planes in the Darnell shot...One is that which conforms to the axis of Darnell's camera lens...The other is that which conforms to the front wall of the Depository...Stancak has drawn his lines according to the camera lens perspective that is seen in the frame of the photo...Stancak's lines conform to this square frame...However any portrayal of linear measurements in the portal must also conform to the perspective of the front wall of the building...You can see this mistake by measuring the distance of Stancak's dotted line from the top of each decorative column on either side of the portal...If this line were drawn accurately, according to the correct perspective, the distance from the line to the top of the column would be equal on both columns...Stancak has entered more easily refuted Rube Goldberg hack science that blows up at a glance and no one points it out to him...To see what the proper perspective plane is for the portal look at the top frame of the window and how it conforms to this angled perspective...The lines Stancak draws should do the same thing...

Another mistake Stancak makes is he draws dotted lines that are supposed to represent the width of the top step...He doesn't notice he has drawn a line over the aluminum window frame at its base...

If you notice Stancak prefers blurry images for his quack presentations...There are much more clearer versions available but Stancak doesn't use them because they will show the flaws in what he is presenting more clearly...

When you point-out that Stancak has drawn a bent leg over what more clearer versions of Darnell show is a radiator no one passes that on to Stancak and it goes unanswered...Those clearer versions of Darnell also show a width on Prayer Man that is well wider than Oswald's narrow waist...

Stancak has not adjusted his previous computer graphic Prayer Man and his 3 inch too long leg because there is no way to adjust it and it proves Prayer Man can't be on the step...

Meanwhile back in the real world of valid science if Stancak had drawn accurate measurement lines they would show that Prayer Man's head comes up just above Frazier's chin...If Stancak applied his science to this measurement it would prove that Prayer Man is 5 foot 5 1/2 inches if his feet are both on the landing...If Prayer Man was 5 foot 5 1/2 and was on the step that would mean if he rose to the landing he would be 6 foot tall and also prove to not be Oswald...   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 07, 2018, 10:55:49 PM
I really do not want to discuss "other forums", but I have noticed what appears to be "clever versions" of film stills/pictures of the TSBD Elm St entrance landing/doorway area as the motorcade passes that seem to contain "add-on" images for occupants. So, if researching the issue, maybe any "new views" should be compared to older versions for clarification, including comparison of "newer" images of PrayerPerson to older versions as well.

 I especially am unable to understand how any mannequin representing the PrayerPersonImage can be placed on a lower step, with one foot on the landing, as there appears to be no evidence to support such stance.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on May 08, 2018, 11:59:53 AM
Stancak has not adjusted his previous computer graphic Prayer Man and his 3 inch too long leg because there is no way to adjust it and it proves Prayer Man can't be on the step...

On their false assumption that the figure is male:

I see that they are trying to analyse the person's inseam.

The inseam is the area from the Crotch to the botton of the Ankle.

Any alleged inseam is invisible in all images, and is completely incalculable because of variations in the Human length of leg anatomy, irrespective of a person's height, and variations in Shoe/ Boot heel size worn and styles of Pants worn/ Trousers worn/ Overalls worn etc.

Any top of any alleged inseam worn could be tight to the crotch or many uncalculable inches away from the crotch, depending on the degree of bagginess or non bagginess of the material worn.

These logical potential variations leave any alleged inseam measurement totally incalculable. This is just common sense and not Rocket Science.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Matthew Finch on May 08, 2018, 03:45:50 PM
Why are the moderation policies of some other site any of our concern?

I recall this being his Modus Operandi on the previous iteration of this forum. Enlightening us hourly (or more frequently) on discussions being had on other forums. I'm still unsure of what, if any, interest this is supposed to hold for any of us here.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 08, 2018, 04:34:24 PM
On their false assumption that the figure is male:

I see that they are trying to analyse the person's inseam.

The inseam is the area from the Crotch to the bottom of the Ankle.

Any alleged inseam is invisible in all images, and is completely incalculable because of variations in the Human length of leg anatomy, irrespective of a person's height, and variations in Shoe/ Boot heel size worn and styles of Pants worn/ Trousers worn/ Overalls worn etc.

Any top of any alleged inseam worn could be tight to the crotch or many uncalculable inches away from the crotch, depending on the degree of bagginess or non bagginess of the material worn.

These logical potential variations leave any alleged inseam measurement totally incalculable. This is just common sense and not Rocket Science.
That's what I wrote in my previous post...The Prayer Man people have now eliminated anyone who questions their easily refuted claims...Stancak said he was going to do an adjustment of his 3 inch too long leg and come back and show it again...He never did because, as I said before, his background computer graphic is too precise and any adjustment he made to his Prayer Man mannequin would have to subtract from some other part of the mannequin and therefore make Prayer Man visibly too short to match what is seen in Darnell...That's why Stancak never adjusted his mannequin to compensate for his overly long leg...It was because he couldn't and he realized he had refuted himself...

Like you say above, what Stancak is doing is a kind of brainwashing technique where all references to Prayer Man are now shown as being Oswald...The mannequin is made to fit Oswald exactly and all height references are referred to as being 5 foot 9 or Oswald's height...Other researchers don't remind Andrej that he has no evidence that Prayer Man is Oswald and he gets away with ignoring the Davidson enhancement that clearly shows the face of a woman who is holding a purse (see page 1)...Even Davidson himself joins the technical discussion while forgetting to tell Stancak that his enhancement clearly shows the face of a woman who cannot be Oswald...

In any case, as I mentioned before, if you can see the crotch and foot you can assume that there must be leg in between so this length is what to go by since it can't be less than what you see, since there has to be a leg and foot to make it reach that far no matter how long the inseam...

The reason Stancak is using his 7 1/2 inch head size blocks in his latest offering is because he cannot go back to his graded measuring stick computer graphic...The reason he isn't going back to his Prayer Man mannequin images and adjusting the leg is because those images have precise measuring sticks included in the graphic...Like I said before, and Stancak completely ignored, if Stancak tries to reduce Prayer Man's leg in that graphic he is either going to make Prayer Man too short, according to those graded measuring sticks, or he is going to distort his body somewhere else... Stancak's measuring sticks keep him honest...And since Stancak's purposes aren't honest he's not going to expose himself to anything that forces him to deal objectively or with scientific accuracy...The others assist him with that because they want Prayer Man to be Oswald no matter what the objective science or evidence shows... 

If Stancak were more scientifically accurate he would note that Prayer Man comes up to just above Frazier's chin...Since Frazier is 6 foot 1/2 inch in height, if Frazier's head were 7 1/2 inches that would make Prayer Man 5 foot 5...If Stancak is claiming Prayer Man is standing on a step that is 7 inches down from the landing, a 5 foot 5 Prayer Man , if brought up to the landing, would then be 6 foot tall...Since Oswald was 5 foot 9 that would also exclude Prayer Man from being Oswald...Stancak knows this which is why he lies and says Prayer Man comes up to Frazier's shoulder and mis-draws his measuring lines...

Stancak is presenting seriously flawed evidence...There's a huge double standard out there because if I tried to pass that malarkey off as science I would be deservedly shredded in quick order...The bias of the playing field here is extreme to the point of discrediting the entire JFK research community...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on May 09, 2018, 03:04:45 PM
It was a dude taking pictures with a camera, in my humble opinion.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 09, 2018, 05:08:49 PM
Not possible because of the Davidson enhancement...I tried to get Davidson back in to the issue but he said that squabbling over the identity of the person was not something he wanted to do...Not a very professional approach to research or responsibility towards what he discovered in my opinion...In my opinion Davidson doesn't want to get involved in the politics that follow...No serious photo analyzer could look at the Davidson enhancement and come away thinking it was anything else but a woman...You can see the Davidson enhancement at the end of the first post in this thread on page 1...In response to my request Davidson said that he would make one comment on the matter...That he thought the face he uncovered was that of a woman...

When Duncan first enlarged the Davidson enhancement I posted it to the Deep Politics board and every single ROKC member who saw it agreed it looked like a woman...Realizing they were in trouble they then lied and said it was a photo quirk that just so happened to look that way by accident...What liars...They just don't want to admit their theory is bogus and aren't afraid to mis-lead the world and JFK research community with a debunked theory...

The only reason people said it was a camera was because of the glowing object...Even Stancak admits that object is Prayer Man's right hand glowing in sun...I am the discoverer of that and Stancak never once credited me for it...Duncan's further enhanced images in that first post show what is clearly an open purse or pocketbook that Sarah Stanton is looking down in to...That's why her hands and arms are in the "praying" position...I have very little respect for JFK commenters who skip all the germane evidence that shows Frazier was talking to Sarah at the instant of the Darnell frame in order to make one liner snipes against the obvious...

I didn't take Sandy Larsen seriously when he and Graves said Gloria Calvery was the lady on the steps in Darnell...Since Larsen thought Prayer Man was Oswald I didn't really take his posts seriously...After I spoke to Calvery's son by phone I learned that indeed that was his mother on the steps in Darnell...Once you understand that you then realize Calvery had already finished her run to the steps shouting the president had been shot and therefore Frazier was well in to his reacting to that shouting and turning to Sarah to see what Calvery had said...

The JFK research community has decided to trade its credibility for the Prayer Man issue...We have a photo of Sarah Stanton's face from the Wiegman frame...We have rock solid circumstantial evidence in Calvery, as well as Frazier's admission that he was speaking to Sarah..And we have a clearly wide waist and pudgy cheeks seen on Prayer Man that conforms to "heavy-set" Sarah and varies from the thin Oswald...This evidence is deliberately ignored by the Prayer Man cult in order to have Andrej Stancak once-remove the evidence to computer graphics where he can divorce the original images enough from their reality source to massage them over to images of Oswald...We are forced to watch Stancak ignore already established proof so he can psychologically impose repeated images of Oswald or Oswald's height in to the portal scene in order to reinforce the idea that Prayer Man is Oswald...Never mind that for the the last few years of trying every time Stancak comes up with a newer better model it still flops and refutes his case...This repeated failure is given preferential treatment and those who post the correct evidence are ushered off the board with false moderation claims and their evidence is ignored...

It's time to break up the presumptuous clique... It has done enough damage already to credible research and those skilled members who present it...And even worse it has thrust to the forefront people who should obviously never be allowed near the inner sanctum of credible JFK assassination research...These people know Prayer Man is Stanton...They are just maintaining the cult and its forced impunity for preferred members who don't have to respond to intelligent evidence...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 09, 2018, 08:10:15 PM
Hey Brian, although I do not dispute the "facial enhancement of PrayerWoman" attributed to ChrisDavidson, I am still not able to "embrace" said enhancement. That said, based on my "interpretation of what I do see", added to other image viewing, along with multiple eyewitness statements/testimony, I have concluded that the image most likely represents SarahDeanStanton, but could represent PaulineRebmanSanders.

I have seen no evidence to indicate any male to be in the place of the PrayerPersonImage. And, with an exception for "opinion", I have not seen or read anything to indicate any "dude taking pictures with a camera". To me, the "object in hand" is most likely a cup containing a beverage being consumed during lunchtime. Additionally, the eyewitness testimony indicates that LeeHarveyOswald was not on the landing during filming from the motorcade.

And, that is where I am today, as I was yesterday, and most likely to be tomorrow. Again, I make no claim to be the first to reach said conclusions, but I am confident that I will not be the last.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 09, 2018, 08:31:16 PM
The glowing object has already proven to be a hand because one of the images Duncan posted (page 1 post 1) varied in contrast just to enough of a degree to show knuckles and slits between the fingers...Besides, a woman would not be holding a cup and opening a purse with the cup in that hand...

We've proven it isn't a cup because if it were the white porcelain would be seen in other photos...If you look at Darnell there is no cup...

It is kind of clear why Davidson doesn't assist...He's helping Stancak split hairs on moot, already-debunked graphics that avoid the main evidence...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 11, 2018, 02:42:21 AM
...No serious photo analyzer could look at the Davidson enhancement and come away thinking it was anything else but a woman...You can see the Davidson enhancement at the end of the first post in this thread on page 1...In response to my request Davidson said that he would make one comment on the matter...That he thought the face he uncovered was that of a woman...

An expert would compare all available frames not concentrate on one. Once he does this he would notice what is most obvious to anyone doing the same, that this cannot be this person's face simply because it isn't even even centred on it's head, that's why the "woman" has a massive forehead btw because it's a complete distortion of what we see in other frames that show nothing of the kind.
You have film(itc Wiegman) with more than one frame showing your subject, which experts do you know that concentrate only on one? Obviously, ones with a case to promote.

Davidson himself went out of his way to isolate Prayer man's face after Duncan found the "woman's face", why would he do that if he supported what Duncan found? He too found a woman or to be more exact, a "woman's eye"(you know, like one with mascara on) and it looks nothing like the previous monstrosity but at least this time it is central to PM's head and not on his neck and collar bone.
His enhancement, the one where he tried to bring out the facial features of PM is not available anymore, since it was posted on Photobucket and the links are dead, you were involved in that thread, you may have seen it.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 11, 2018, 03:04:02 AM
...
I especially am unable to understand how any mannequin representing the PrayerPersonImage can be placed on a lower step, with one foot on the landing, as there appears to be no evidence to support such stance. [/size][/font][/i]

The fact that it's been universally excepted that if PM is standing on the landing then it cannot be LHO, is motivation enough to want to find out if he might actually be on the top step. Stancak is exploring that possibillity with what he and others think they see in Darnell, a man with his left leg bent.

On another question that you asked earlier that I meant to answer, the Towner film has been looked at carefully and there just isn't enough clarity in the doorway area to pick out PM, the best you can see is a flash of BL's shirt as if he's waving IIRC, far too dark to pick out PM. The Hughes film is actually better, BL can be seen clearly and there's even a spec of something behind him but no more than a that, a hint of someone in PM's position captured before Wiegman turns on(there's a nice gif of this somewhere).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 11, 2018, 06:21:15 PM
An expert would compare all available frames not concentrate on one. Once he does this he would notice what is most obvious to anyone doing the same, that this cannot be this person's face simply because it isn't even even centred on it's head, that's why the "woman" has a massive forehead btw because it's a complete distortion of what we see in other frames that show nothing of the kind.
You have film(itc Wiegman) with more than one frame showing your subject, which experts do you know that concentrate only on one? Obviously, ones with a case to promote.

Davidson himself went out of his way to isolate Prayer man's face after Duncan found the "woman's face", why would he do that if he supported what Duncan found? He too found a woman or to be more exact, a "woman's eye"(you know, like one with mascara on) and it looks nothing like the previous monstrosity but at least this time it is central to PM's head and not on his neck and collar bone.
His enhancement, the one where he tried to bring out the facial features of PM is not available anymore, since it was posted on Photobucket and the links are dead, you were involved in that thread, you may have seen it.
Wrong, wrong, & wrong...

That same expert would notice what I already posted in the previous threads...That thread was erased, but in it I showed how in the other photos you mention there was a person to Prayer Man's left...That person isn't visible in the Davidson enhancement so we have to ask where he went? The answer is he pulled in behind Prayer Man and created that freakish appendage people are referring to as the elongated forehead...Bart Kamp tried to use the elongated forehead to dismiss the woman's face as you are doing...But that isn't how credible photogrammetry works...Credible photogrammetry determines the correct interpretation of what is seen in photographic images and you still haven't provided an explanation for what is seen in Davidson's enhancement...The Prayer Man people tried to say the woman's face was an illusion but that is obviously ridiculous because the face is too solid a thing in the photo to be a mirage...So, I totally agree that more than one Wiegman frame should be examined...And when you do you find the elongated forehead has no connection to the face and therefore can't be used for a cheap dismissal of the face that still requires adequate explanation...Even better - the other Wiegman frames are not as sharp but they do show the same woman's face without the forehead...I'm sorry but what you wrote is not even close to being a valid scientific analysis of Davidson's enhancement...

Besides the above, your claim is wrong because the face is centered on the head and body...The face itself is pretty much a representation of the head...The reason Kamp's claim that the face is an illusion is ridiculous is because the face itself is located in a position that is exactly where a face should be according to human anatomy...That face is perfectly centered according to Prayer Man's arms and torso that are also visible in the enhancement...The face's expression also forensically matches a woman looking in to her purse so there is reinforcing behavioral evidence that is completely off the radar of the Prayer Man people...So contrary to what you and Kamp assert, the opposite is true and the face does perfectly conform to body location...The reason it is the exact size and place for a face on a body is because it is Sarah Stanton's...I tried to call Stanton's grand niece last weekend but got no answer...I am sure if we can get a photo of Stanton we can confirm that is her face...Also, if we can get that next of kin to allow us to send her the Davidson enhancement maybe she or some other relative will confirm it is Sarah...

Davidson and Unger could help with this but they are now part of the political group that refuses to give any assistance to our truthful discoveries...Sorry Barry but an expert will quickly confirm the woman's face seen in Wiegman is a real part of the Wiegman original and does credibly show a woman's face (Sarah Stanton)...   

PS: The clearest images of Darnell show a radiator where Stancak has his bent leg...I have posted this several times and it gets ignored by those who apologize for people who are wasting the community's time by further pursuing what they already know to be false evidence...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 11, 2018, 08:18:23 PM
The fact that it's been universally excepted that if PM is standing on the landing then it cannot be LHO, is motivation enough to want to find out if he might actually be on the top step. Stancak is exploring that possibillity with what he and others think they see in Darnell, a man with his left leg bent.

On another question that you asked earlier that I meant to answer, the Towner film has been looked at carefully and there just isn't enough clarity in the doorway area to pick out PM, the best you can see is a flash of BL's shirt as if he's waving IIRC, far too dark to pick out PM. The Hughes film is actually better, BL can be seen clearly and there's even a spec of something behind him but no more than a that, a hint of someone in PM's position captured before Wiegman turns on(there's a nice gif of this somewhere).
As for the LeeHarveyOswald As PrayerManTheory, among the known eyewitnesses/occupants of the stairs/landing/doorway area, not one testified that LHO was there, among them, as the motorcade drove past. And, I do believe there was testimony as well from some that they had not seen him there at the time. That said, why is there motivation to make it possible for LHO to be the person represented by the image aka PrayerPerson?

There is no evidence indicating a male, with a right foot on a lower step, with a bent left leg, and the left foot on the landing.

Barry, because it is "universally accepted" that if there, that has to be the stance, indicates an agenda to make something possible as an "if" evidence of a positive. So, with evidence that contradicts an "if", and no evidence to support said "if", what value are the mannequins? Is it an attempt to promote a supposition shy of reliable evidence?

You are not likely to find anyone less skilled in photography/film than myself. However, I fail to understand how a view from a moving camera can be more reliable than Ms Towner's film. So, I suppose, my question should be whether or not "an expert" has attempted "an improved view" of the doorway area as seen on the Towner Film?It certainly appears to have a much better angle than the existing MovingCamera views.

So, Barry, in answer to your questions, appreciated by the way, that is where I am, have been for a while, and most likely to remain.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 12, 2018, 04:22:40 PM
The glowing object has already proven to be a hand because one of the images Duncan posted (page 1 post 1) varied in contrast just to enough of a degree to show knuckles and slits between the fingers...Besides, a woman would not be holding a cup and opening a purse with the cup in that hand...

We've proven it isn't a cup because if it were the white porcelain would be seen in other photos...If you look at Darnell there is no cup...

It is kind of clear why Davidson doesn't assist...He's helping Stancak split hairs on moot, already-debunked graphics that avoid the main evidence...
Admittedly a conclusion on my part, and with any scientific ability suspect, none the less, to me it appears to be a cup, and receiving reflected sunlight, but not direct sunlight.

Again as stated, a cup being held by the right hand, possibly with assistance from the left hand when lowered in a holding and/or "prayer" position, with a purse attached/strapped to the mostly out of sight left forearm. And, the purse is also receiving reflected sunlight.

And, whether right or wrong, as stated, a basis for said conclusion(s). 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 12, 2018, 04:47:58 PM
Once protected by censorship of the opposition Stancak is formulating his final evidence...The dishonest way he is getting around our Sarah Stanton evidence is by inventing a new person in the portal who doesn't exist and labeling her Stanton...That way he can pretend all the evidence that makes Stanton Prayer Man can be ignored and he can use his imaginary Stanton as a one size fits all solution to his Prayer Man problem...

Other researchers participate in this self-delusion by pretending they are helping Stancak with technical fine-tuning of his modeling...This is a psychological escape mechanism for evading any direct confrontation of our Prayer Man evidence that proves it is Sarah Stanton...Davidson publicly posted that he believes his enhancement of the Wiegman frame shows the face of a woman...So the question that begs is why help fine-tune images of Oswald as Prayer Man if you think Prayer Man is a woman? What is the point and, with all the strict conditions put on evidence by the community, why is one group allowed to continue to take thread space on a theory they already believe isn't valid?   

As far as Stancak's latest offering:   He is claiming a woman who is not seen in any of the film images is Stanton...He has fabricated her image and placed her in Darnell even though she is not visible in Darnell...In short this woman is imaginary yet Stancak is being allowed to ignore all our fact-based evidence via this non-existent person...Stancak interprets this woman from a small face seen in between Shelley & Lovelady in Altgens...Only that small face probably belongs to Pauline Sanders not Stanton...There are only two women in Darnell...One is Sanders who said she was in the last row and therefore had her back to the plate glass window and the other was Stanton...If you look at line of sight in Altgens the candidate for the small face is Sanders who is in a position to show up in that spot in Altgens...Stanton is Prayer Man so she can't be in that spot in Altgens since she is out of view and behind the west wall of the portal...

Stancak shows Shelley on the landing in Darnell...Shelley has already been established as walking up the Elm Street extension with Lovelady in Couch/Darnell...By doing this Stancak shows a serious lack of fidelity to the evidence and willingness to show images that are in serious violation of the reality that really exists in the film imagery...The community continues to practice a gross double standard to the direct detriment of its members simply because those who offer this inaccurate evidence support the Murphy Theory...

David Josephs showed a shadow line that was fairly accurate...The shadow of the west wall went up Frazier's right side...Stancak's shadow line is off and too far west... 
   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 12, 2018, 07:04:38 PM
Brian, surely you are not surprised about the PaperDoll, uh, I mean the Mannequin Evidence as presented. Using "what ifs" is not evidence. Especially, however, the so called "face" appears as an artifact/shadow/ off color brick, as the said "face" appears, at least to me, "enhanced".

I do, however, allow for the possibility that PaulineSanders is "in the area". But, I also allow for the possibility for an east versus west mix up, relative to the stated landing position.


There does not appear to be any visible indication that the PrayerPersonImage has feet on different levels of the landing/stairs.

Unfortunately, many of those "less traveled" will see the PaperDoll, uh I mean Mannequin, evidence and consider it factual, instead of a "what if".

It is quite unfortunate, and frustrating as well, to see assertions without reliable provable evidence presented on other forums, but without being able to freely offer opposing viewpoints. Whether banned, or consistently encountering "technical difficulty on one specific forum", the net result is the same. But, where the power lays, the power lies. And, as far as I know/understand,this forum can only control what is presented here. That said, the opportunity to participate on this forum in "open discussions", expressing my interpretation of presentation of JFK AssassinationResearch issues, is much appreciated.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 13, 2018, 06:09:48 PM
Larry:   I've looked at Stancak's tiny face in between Lovelady and Shelley in Altgens and believe it is real...I believe it has to be Sanders because Altgens Z-255 is synchronous with the Zapruder-257 time of Wiegman so Prayer Man provably could not be in that spot...

There is a violation of the evidence going on in the present community discussion of this issue...My phone call to Gloria Calvery's son proves his mother is at the steps in Couch/Darnell...The Prayer Man group is doing its best to ignore that Calvery being at the base of the steps in Darnell means she had just spent the distance getting there shouting the president has been shot...So good application of the evidence shows that Frazier had already heard Calvery shouting by the time of Darnell...Good detective work realizes that the reason Frazier and Prayer Man do not shift positions in Couch/Darnell is because they are facing each other and talking to each other...Mark Knight says it is speculation to say Prayer Man and Frazier are talking to each other...Rubbish!...All the evidence points to them doing exactly that...Including their body language which suggests two people looking at each other as people who were talking to each other would do...Mr Knight gives no consideration that during a presidential assassination where people are breaking out in a panic that no time would be lost in responding to events...If Frazier heard Calvery shouting the president had been shot on the way to the steps he most certainly would not have delayed asking Stanton what Calvery had said...Stancak lies and tries to tell us that Frazier delayed and waited until Couch/Darnell concluded to turn 180 degrees backwards to ask a non-existent Stanton what Calvery said...But that is obviously preposterous and is only Stancak's way of avoiding the obvious...Any credible detective would realize that Calvery had shouted on the way to the point she is seen at in Darnell and Frazier is in the process of asking "Sarah" what she said, as he told Fagin in 2013...I have mentioned this many times and each time it gets ignored...I think it is obvious who is doing the "obstructing" here and it isn't us...This is evidence - and better evidence than anything shown by persons fabricating cartoons in order to force Prayer Man to be Oswald...

Someone should remind Mr Knight that I have already shown the evidence he is calling for and Stancak admitted its correctness (and therefore the wrongness of his own offerings)...Stancak has still not corrected his foot on the step mannequin with the graded measuring sticks because he knows he has trapped himself with the precise measurements those sticks restrict him to...If Mr Knight were a more neutral moderator he would recognize this and ask Stancak to please reproduce his foot on the step graphic...Knight pretends none of this ever happened and asks us to produce evidence we already have and he hasn't answered...As far as the claim the graphics are very hard to produce, Stancak has produced many graphics since then trying to show Oswald as the mannequin...So I find it difficult to believe he can't show his 'adjusted' Prayer Man with a foot on the step...

Also, Davidson has come out and declared his Wiegman enhancement shows the face of a woman...So Knight should be asked what good it does for someone who states they believe Prayer Man is a woman to assist someone trying to show it is Oswald? Isn't that a little goofy? Also Davidson's enhancement comes from an original image and directly shows what is in that image as his metadata proved...Davidson is a vastly superior piece of evidence that is based on an original frame and accurately shows what is in that frame...Stancak is just fabricating cartoons to try to force Oswald as Prayer Man...Knight ignores Davidson and forces the entire community to accept Stancak as the standard while falsely accusing us of not producing any evidence...         
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 13, 2018, 09:39:20 PM
Brian: All that "I can see" when viewing Altgens6, next to the BillyNolanLoveladyImage facial area to his left before seeing the WilliamHoytShelleyImage right side, is what to me appears to be BNL's left ear.
When viewing,I believe the WeigmanFilm, I am unable to conclude seeing a face near the east wall on familiar versions of the scene, but there is an "enhanced view" that indicates a face of a seemingly small person. Although "inconclusive" for me, I accept as fact that MsPaulineSanders, although not positively seen and/or identified, has to be somewhere on the landing/stairs area.
But, that said, I remain open to a possible east versus west "directional mix-up" when indicating their "occupant location" on the landing.


BuellWesleyFrazier, and possibly BNL as well, indicated that an understandably upset GloriaLittleCalvery was "broadcasting verbally" what she had just witnessed to the stairs/landing occupants as she attempted to return to her work area at the TSBD Building. And, there is sufficient testimony by BWF about his conversation with SarahDeanStanton to confirm what GLC had announced.

In any event, sufficient evidence indicates that the apparently female images seen entering the west side of the stairway actually represents GLC, and MsKaranHicks.

And, by the way, I recently came upon a post/reply I had made, on another dedicated forum, with a sub-forum dedicated to the JFKSr Assassination, that was posted in about April, 2014, where I had indicated my conclusion that the PrayerPersonImage represented a female, as well as a possible connection to SDS. Although, I believe the discussion has been around longer than 4 years.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 13, 2018, 09:59:11 PM
I always thought Lovelady was jug-eared and that was his left ear too...The clearest blow-up of Lovelady in the portal in Altgens shows a forehead and bridge of a nose on that left ear...It is indeed a face and I credit Stancak for it...

It made me take another look at Shelley because his image makes it look like the back of his head should be covering that area...It made me realize Shelley is actually facing the exact same direction as Lovelady and they are both looking down Elm St at the limousine...The image that he is looking at the follow-up cars on Houston is an illusion caused by the side of his face...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 14, 2018, 02:25:38 AM
Brian, if you go to Duncan's thread on EF, "Prayerman or Prayerwoman Research" on page18 halfway down there's a composite of three Wiegman frames focused on PM, that's what I'm referring to. The frame where we see "a face" completely contradicts what is seen in the other two both in position and detail and most especially the position, his neck is now missing and he has a longer forehead, show these frames to an expert if you think it's worthwhile. I know what I think and I have zero confidence in it being even close to the truth of who the person really was.
There is a alternative to your idea that someone came and stood behind PM for that one frame where the face appears,
what your seeing is a distorted frame, that expains the stretch forehead and all that detail that makes up the features of a face which has dropped to the chin, collar bone and neck.
P18 of the PM or PW thread on EF. The face is neither centred to it's body or focused on the head's postion in the previous frames.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 14, 2018, 03:23:13 AM
Larry,
regarding testimony... Sam Holland said he saw a puff of smoke on the knoll along with at least two others who stood near him, do you believe them?
Well that's solid testimony so why wouldn't you?
Many saw an exit wound in the back of the head, then there's JBC and his "one shot, turned... then I was hit" scenario, I could go on but there's so much that we as individuals chose to dismiss from testimony, why do you have so much faith in those on the steps? You have to answer this or stop bringing it up to me.

The only one who matters on the steps is IMHO BWF, maybe Lovelady and perhaps Shelley but how could they see LHO on the steps when he was upstairs doing the shooting? With that mentality then they must have been mistaken and it wouldn't be that hard to convince them otherwise given the gravity of the situation with the Feds, cops and SS all listening in. This isn't even conspiracy, it's police work, we have our man, we know it's him and we just do what comes natural. Recollection and memory are flexible things, they change within seconds without you being aware of it and one small observation or thought can change your whole opinion.

The SFM is said to have taken 4k scans of Towner but they haven't been made available yet I don't think, from what we have available now we can see nothing of PM in it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 14, 2018, 05:35:16 AM
Brian, if you go to Duncan's thread on EF, "Prayerman or Prayerwoman Research" on page18 halfway down there's a composite of three Wiegman frames focused on PM, that's what I'm referring to. The frame where we see "a face" completely contradicts what is seen in the other two both in position and detail and most especially the position, his neck is now missing and he has a longer forehead, show these frames to an expert if you think it's worthwhile. I know what I think and I have zero confidence in it being even close to the truth of who the person really was.
There is a alternative to your idea that someone came and stood behind PM for that one frame where the face appears,
what your seeing is a distorted frame, that expains the stretch forehead and all that detail that makes up the features of a face which has dropped to the chin, collar bone and neck.
P18 of the PM or PW thread on EF. The face is neither centred to it's body or focused on the head's postion in the previous frames.
No you are dead wrong...

First off Kamp always uses blurry images...I don't know if it because he has trouble replicating images, but I suspect it is because he is purposefully obscuring evidence that works against him...Stancak does the same thing...If we were to do this properly we would get the clearest versions of all three...I'm sure Davidson could provide us with the 'enhanced' versions of all three but for some reason he chooses not to participate in proving the correct evidence in the Prayer Man matter...Duncan has provided us with the clearest version of the 3rd image in his original post in this thread...

If we could see the clearest Davidson enhancements of each of Kamp's images in that "composite" we would see that you are dead wrong in saying the other two images "completely contradict" what is seen in Davidson's enhancement that shows the woman's face...Clarify the other two Wiegman frames you cite and it will show the same face only raised up slightly with the hand held in front of it...There is no variation in "detail" and you will see the same eyeglasses in all the shots along with the purse being held up by both hands...There is no validity to saying Prayer Man changes position...Of course he changes position...The correct description of that position change is Sarah looks down in to her purse in the 3rd frame and angles her head lower...It has no effect on determining the validity of the face which can be seen clearest in that 3rd image because Wiegman's camera had a brief instant of steadiness where it took a sharp shot...

   As I explained before, in the previous deleted thread there was a much wider view of the images you reference and you could see that forehead just to Prayer Man's left in a previous frame...In the sharp frame with the woman's face that forehead is gone from its previous position and cannot be seen...It took me a while to realize it had pulled behind Prayer Man and that was what was causing that freakishly elongated forehead...The reason the frame with the face can't be a distorted frame is because the image and all its contents are noticeably sharper than the other frames...The shutter clicked on that frame when the camera was steady so counter to what you allege the frame is not distorted as can be seen by its sharp contents...

But let's go further in to this...You don't understand how photogrammetry works...Even if the frame was distorted the face itself possesses some pretty clearly defined features that can't be dismissed so easily...There's no doubt that when you look at the woman's face you can see perfectly symmetrical eyes, a nose, and a mouth as well as the cheeks and rest of the face that contains them...This is not some kind of freakish illusion because we can look at Prayer Man's torso and arms and see that the face is squarely positioned where a face should be...Illusions do not possess perfect symmetry of features and they do not appear in the exact place where they should be on the body...The rest of what you write is complete falsity since the explanation of the head being lower in the 3rd image is because Prayer Man looks down in to her purse in that frame and lowers her head to do it...Your saying this behavioral movement that perfectly conforms to what we are seeing is proof of the illegitimacy of the face is ridiculous and has zero merit...I have posted numerous times over the years that you can't dismiss the face by means of any other things in the image because it is legitimate in and of itself and requires explanation...It is forensically contiguous...The explanation is simple...It is Sarah Stanton's face... 

If Davidson were to enhance the other two images Kamp shows in his composite we would see the same face with a hand in front of it looking more forward...We would see the same glasses that are seen in the 3rd image in both other images as well as the same purse...On a side note the hand is even more apparent as a hand in the first two images because you can see the square shape of the fingers better because of the angle...These features will become quite clear if a professional scan of the Wiegman Film is gotten...       
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 14, 2018, 07:35:16 AM
I always thought Lovelady was jug-eared and that was his left ear too...The clearest blow-up of Lovelady in the portal in Altgens shows a forehead and bridge of a nose on that left ear...It is indeed a face and I credit Stancak for it...

It made me take another look at Shelley because his image makes it look like the back of his head should be covering that area...It made me realize Shelley is actually facing the exact same direction as Lovelady and they are both looking down Elm St at the limousine...The image that he is looking at the follow-up cars on Houston is an illusion caused by the side of his face...
At one time, a while or so back, I felt as though all known occupants of the stairs/landing had been located and identified, with the exception of SarahStanton and PaulineSanders. And, one of the two  would most likely be the person represented by the PrayerPersonImage, with some indication that SarahStanton is in the PP location as filmed, leaving unknown the exact location and identification of PaulineSanders.
With that said, I am unable to conclude sight of a face between WilliamShelley and BillyLovelady. I also do not conclude that WS is looking west/southwest, and is, as it appears, looking east/southeast.

But again, as I am sure you know, film and photographs only reproduce images that rely upon interpretation.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 14, 2018, 09:23:44 AM
Larry,
regarding testimony... Sam Holland said he saw a puff of smoke on the knoll along with at least two others who stood near him, do you believe them?
Well that's solid testimony so why wouldn't you?
Many saw an exit wound in the back of the head, then there's JBC and his "one shot, turned... then I was hit" scenario, I could go on but there's so much that we as individuals chose to dismiss from testimony, why do you have so much faith in those on the steps? You have to answer this or stop bringing it up to me.

The only one who matters on the steps is IMHO BWF, maybe Lovelady and perhaps Shelley but how could they see LHO on the steps when he was upstairs doing the shooting? With that mentality then they must have been mistaken and it wouldn't be that hard to convince them otherwise given the gravity of the situation with the Feds, cops and SS all listening in. This isn't even conspiracy, it's police work, we have our man, we know it's him and we just do what comes natural. Recollection and memory are flexible things, they change within seconds without you being aware of it and one small observation or thought can change your whole opinion.

The SFM is said to have taken 4k scans of Towner but they haven't been made available yet I don't think, from what we have available now we can see nothing of PM in it.
Barry,
regarding testimony? You ask whether or not I believe SamHolland and two others who stood near him, when they said that they saw smoke on the knoll, and then you ask why I wouldn't believe their solid testimony, as if you preferred to answer your own question.
Need I remind you sir, that this is the PrayerWoman Thread/Discussion? However, for clarification, I post comments regarding what I consider evidence based conclusions, and respond to comments by other posters. But, I do not consider "responding"to be an effort to be "bringing anything up to you". And, you need to locate and quote me being dismissive about SamHolland's testimony, any eyewitness testimony deemed reliable regarding any JohnKennedy head wounds, or the JohnConnally shot scenario testimony. As for as my "faith in those on the steps", said testimony passes the consistency and reliability level that I find acceptable. And, not one of the eyewitnesses/landing/stairs occupants testified that LeeOswald was among them during motorcade passage.
Bear in mind, BuellFrazier did not testify that LeeOswald was on the landing/stairs as the assassination occurred.
With regards to "mentality" as implied, although touch and go for awhile, about 3 years back, it seems to have returned to a self acceptable level, age considered. So, I see no need to be guided as to how to think.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 14, 2018, 03:34:59 PM
John Butler thinks Prayer Man is a forgery that was airbrushed in to the Darnell and Wiegman films by photo alterers...In my opinion this is a Fetzer-like claim equal to mobile forgery laboratories...

Butler then proceeds to say Prayer Man's visibly thick forearms exclude Prayer Man from being a woman...It never dawns on Mr Butler that visibly stocky forearms also exclude Prayer Man from being Oswald since Oswald was noticeably thin and had thin body features...Butler is all over the place and sarcastically adds that perhaps Prayer Man was an Amish woman who had done hard farmwork and gotten muscular arms...Well Mr Butler, what about Prayer Man's visibly stocky arms showing an indication that Prayer Man was "heavy-set" like Buell Frazier described? Any possibility the stocky arms you see are an indication that Prayer Man had fat arms like "heavy-set" Sarah Stanton? Would a 5 foot 5 woman be a person whose stout body size would elicit a description of being "heavy-set" and therefore can Sarah Stanton be so conclusively dismissed as you do? 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 14, 2018, 05:45:37 PM
I suppose the irony, above irony, is that those of us that refuse to accept an unsupportable claim, are looked upon as "discussion disruptors", and are subject to ridicule attempts, as if we had made an outlandish claim, after 50 years of evident claim contradiction.

As I recently observed, my participation, that began on another forum in the then ongoing  PrayerPersonImage discussion, exceeds at least 4 years, and with consistent conclusions.

Far too often, "research researches research without study of research". And, without studying and researching the actual event, as it occurred in real time with real people involved as participants, victims, and witnesses.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 16, 2018, 04:38:47 AM
Barry,
regarding testimony? You ask whether or not I believe SamHolland and two others who stood near him, when they said that they saw smoke on the knoll, and then you ask why I wouldn't believe their solid testimony, as if you preferred to answer your own question.
Need I remind you sir, that this is the PrayerWoman Thread/Discussion? However, for clarification, I post comments regarding what I consider evidence based conclusions, and respond to comments by other posters. But, I do not consider "responding"to be an effort to be "bringing anything up to you". And, you need to locate and quote me being dismissive about SamHolland's testimony, any eyewitness testimony deemed reliable regarding any JohnKennedy head wounds, or the JohnConnally shot scenario testimony. As for as my "faith in those on the steps", said testimony passes the consistency and reliability level that I find acceptable. And, not one of the eyewitnesses/landing/stairs occupants testified that LeeOswald was among them during motorcade passage.
Bear in mind, BuellFrazier did not testify testify that LeeOswald was on the landing/stairs as the assassination occurred.
With regards to "mentality" as implied, although touch and go for awhile, about 3 years back, it seems to have returned to a self acceptable level, age considered. So, I see no need to be guided as to how to think.

I dismiss all the solid examples I gave you, as must anyone who believes all the shots came from behind and have found no evidence that those on the steps were any better at seperating facts from what they later believed. Also, I was talking about the mentality of the investigators and not your own. You seem to believe their testimony is persausive and yet for me it proves nothing. I assumed you must ignore some witnesses, if this is true then think of it and tell me how those on the steps were any better.

Did Holland or any of the dozen or so up there with him, tell us that some of these men were still clapping and waving at the limo as it approached them, including one stood within feet of Sam himself? Of course not. Does that then mean it probably didn't happen even if we see fuzzy images where they seem to be doing exactly that?
 
If you need examples nearer to PM  there are many out there from those that believe LHO=PM, including their motivation and inspiration for looking at it so closely.
.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 16, 2018, 07:59:13 AM
I dismiss all the solid examples I gave you, as must anyone who believes all the shots came from behind and have found no evidence that those on the steps were any better at seperating facts from what they later believed. Also, I was talking about the mentality of the investigators and not your own. You seem to believe their testimony is persausive and yet for me it proves nothing. I assumed you must ignore some witnesses, if this is true then think of it and tell me how those on the steps were any better.

Did Holland or any of the dozen or so up there with him, tell us that some of these men were still clapping and waving at the limo as it approached them, including one stood within feet of Sam himself? Of course not. Does that then mean it probably didn't happen even if we see fuzzy images where they seem to be doing exactly that?
 
If you need examples nearer to PM  there are many out there from those that believe LHO=PM, including their motivation and inspiration for looking at it so closely.
.
Barry, again, this thread is named " "PrayerWoman", and so named as a discussion about who is represented by the PrayerPersonImage.
This thread is not about SamHolland, or about the TripleUnderpass occupants.
The eyewitnesses/occupants of the TSBD Building Elm St entrance landing/stairs would have information about the other occupants, and SamHolland and other TU occupants would not be likely to be able to provide information about occupants of the entrance stairs/landing.
Quite simple to me. And, for what reason for me to "need examples nearer to PM"? Who are the "many out there from those that believe LHO=PM, including their motivation and inspiration for looking at it so closely"? What does that mean?
As often stated, I indicate my conclusions, and you can do the same. Just state your case. However, the actual facts may differ, so I can deal with that. But, you have not provided any said facts.
In any event Barry, I have answered your questions, so I would hope that you do not keep asking the same, but reworded, questions.


But, I do wonder, as I wander, what your reasoning is for believing the"many out there from those that believe LHO=PM",and not agreeing with the many, yes many, that cannot, and do not, believe the LHO is PrayerManTheory?
For the record, I am among the many that conclude the PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TSBD Bldg, who went to the entrance stairs/landing area to view the JFK Sr motorcade, that included FL JBary Kamp, along with TG JBC Jr and FL IBC in the limousine.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 16, 2018, 04:52:24 PM
The Prayer Man promoters keep getting away with denying the Davidson enhancement...The Davidson enhancement in itself proves Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...When it was first posted over 2 years ago every ROKC member who saw it admitted it looked like a woman...They then backed-off saying yes it did appear like a woman but was a freak image that appeared because of photographic glitches...Rubbish...The woman's face is a real part of the Wiegman celluloid frame and the Murphy cult has gotten away with ignoring sound scientific evidence...

Davidson is all you need and it credibly shows the face of Sarah Stanton on Prayer Man and not Lee Harvey Oswald...Stancak is wasting the JFK research community's time with his cartoons that try to force Oswald's image on to Prayer Man...The moderators are allowing Stancak to basically do what Cinque and Fetzer did... 

Credible research looks at all evidence objectively and actively seeks evidence that solves an issue one way or the other...The Prayer Man people deliberately ignore evidence and then use mob tactics to get biased moderators to censor those with the facts...

Davidson avoids answering why he helps promote a computer graphic showing Oswald while he himself publicly committed to Prayer Man being a woman...What sense does that make and why is the time of other researchers being wasted? 

By the way, like Stancak, Davidson has drawn invalid height lines across the portal face that do not conform to the Depository front wall and its perspective plane...Other researchers are uncredibly mute on this and don't call out Davidson and Stancak on this disqualifying violation of science...They respond with ignoring...   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on May 18, 2018, 03:22:09 PM
it was a dude taking pictures with a camera, methinx
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Denis Morissette on May 19, 2018, 04:48:35 AM
If you want to correctly label correctly label one or more ladies, you may want to order photos of the Westbrook Collection at the 6FM. Photos show Karen with several of her colleagues.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 20, 2018, 11:23:57 AM
Barry, again, this thread is named " "PrayerWoman", and so named as a discussion about who is represented by the PrayerPersonImage.
This thread is not about SamHolland, or about the TripleUnderpass occupants.
The eyewitnesses/occupants of the TSBD Building Elm St entrance landing/stairs would have information about the other occupants, and SamHolland and other TU occupants would not be likely to be able to provide information about occupants of the entrance stairs/landing.
Quite simple to me. And, for what reason for me to "need examples nearer to PM"? Who are the "many out there from those that believe LHO=PM, including their motivation and inspiration for looking at it so closely"? What does that mean?
As often stated, I indicate my conclusions, and you can do the same. Just state your case. However, the actual facts may differ, so I can deal with that. But, you have not provided any said facts.
In any event Barry, I have answered your questions, so I would hope that you do not keep asking the same, but reworded, questions.


But, I do wonder, as I wander, what your reasoning is for believing the"many out there from those that believe LHO=PM",and not agreeing with the many, yes many, that cannot, and do not, believe the LHO is PrayerManTheory?
For the record, I am among the many that conclude the PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TSBD Bldg, who went to the entrance stairs/landing area to view the JFK Sr motorcade, that included FL JBary Kamp, along with TG JBC Jr and FL IBC in the limousine.


You made it about witnesses here Larry, so I gave you my best example of a false witness in this case and I could have chosen a witness from any case I wanted and still be on topic, if you believe otherwise then please explain why. If I had decent footage of anyone on the steps during or immeadiatly after the shooting, I'm sure I'd have used that instead.

Here's what you haven't answered, why do you put so much faith in what witnesses said? I don't get it. Can you give me even one single example of a witness who is provably correct about anything significant in the plaza? How about some professional research that tells us to trust eyewitnesses? Anything.

Also, another you have yet to answer, since you don't trust "the enhancements" do you think PM actually looks like a woman? How/why?

If PM assumed his position just as the motorcade turned onto Houston, which witness would have noticed him?

I said if you need examples of poor witnesses nearer to PM then just search the web for research on the PM issue, also you wrote earlier that you could find no reason for wanting to put PM on the top step instead of the landing, the inspiration for that lies in the same place, on the web from the PM crowd. Your asking questions in a place where there are no real PM advocates getting involved.

My "belief" is that they are correct to question the trust put in these witnesses and I tend to agree that the "evidence" suggesting it's a woman is extreemly weak, the weakest argument against the whole issue. As for the other side, well I would guess that about 95% of them believe that Oswald has to be still upstairs on the sixth floor, can you figure out what their motivation is Larry and why I tend not to agree with them most of the time(but all the time, where did I say that?) Where do you yourself have Lee btw and can you give me one single fact based reason why it can't be him?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 20, 2018, 06:57:05 PM
You made it about witnesses here Larry, so I gave you my best example of a false witness in this case and I could have chosen a witness from any case I wanted and still be on topic, if you believe otherwise then please explain why. If I had decent footage of anyone on the steps during or immeadiatly after the shooting, I'm sure I'd have used that instead.

Here's what you haven't answered, why do you put so much faith in what witnesses said? I don't get it. Can you give me even one single example of a witness who is provably correct about anything significant in the plaza? How about some professional research that tells us to trust eyewitnesses? Anything.

Also, another you have yet to answer, since you don't trust "the enhancements" do you think PM actually looks like a woman? How/why?

If PM assumed his position just as the motorcade turned onto Houston, which witness would have noticed him?

I said if you need examples of poor witnesses nearer to PM then just search the web for research on the PM issue, also you wrote earlier that you could find no reason for wanting to put PM on the top step instead of the landing, the inspiration for that lies in the same place, on the web from the PM crowd. Your asking questions in a place where there are no real PM advocates getting involved.

My "belief" is that they are correct to question the trust put in these witnesses and I tend to agree that the "evidence" suggesting it's a woman is extreemly weak, the weakest argument against the whole issue. As for the other side, well I would guess that about 95% of them believe that Oswald has to be still upstairs on the sixth floor, can you figure out what their motivation is Larry and why I tend not to agree with them most of the time(but all the time, where did I say that?) Where do you yourself have Lee btw and can you give me one single fact based reason why it can't be him?

Quite frankly Barry, I do believe I know what conclusions I have reached, and what I have expressed, as well as any questions I may have asked. In the event that any expressed conclusion, or question, is not understood, I would suggest that you review this thread, read my posts, as well as any posted reply along with said post/reply being responded to. If still lacking clarity, I would suggest a complete, as described, review repeat.

In the event of needed additional clarification regarding my expressed conclusions, I would need a specific quote of said post/reply, along with a location reference. Then, I would need to know and understand any specific disputed conclusion with reasoning. And as well, your "evidence" that disproves my conclusion, along with any "evidence" that provides provable basis for your own.


Provided statements/testimony if needed:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/sawyer_j.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arce.htm
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 21, 2018, 06:30:51 PM
If you want to correctly label correctly label one or more ladies, you may want to order photos of the Westbrook Collection at the 6FM. Photos show Karen with several of her colleagues.

The only lady that counts is Sarah Stanton and we have already correctly identified her as the person who is being called "Prayer Man" and mis-identified as Lee Harvey Oswald...

Karen Westbrook is a minor side issue where she has misidentified Gloria Calvery in her 6th Floor Museum interview...The real Calvery is the tall woman seen in Betzner 3 in a scarf as identified by her son in a private telephone call with myself...A sick person who has grabbed attention with the Prayer Man issue is denying my conversation with Calvery's son and telling me I have to prove it before he'll accept that Tall Woman is Calvery...The reason this ID is important is because Calvery's position as having arrived at the base of the steps in the Couch/Darnell film proves the timing of Buell Frazier turning and talking to Sarah as he testified...Frazier is facing Prayer Man in Couch/Darnell and therefore Prayer Man is Stanton...

I don't want to insult anyone, but Duncan's Davidson enhancement at the bottom of his original post in this thread is enough evidence to prove Prayer Man is Stanton...Stanton's face is visible enough at the resolution seen in Davidson to prove on a photo analysis basis that Prayer Man is Stanton...If you are a credible analyst you will realize Davidson provides enough evidence to prove Prayer Man is Stanton...The Davidson enhancement is the dividing line between qualified and unqualified...Credible analyst and uncredible...When Davidson publicly states Prayer Man is a woman, as he has repeatedly done, the Prayer Man side ignores him...They are not credibly seeking the truth...

Prayer Man has both feet on the landing...If you analyze Prayer Man's wide hips at the height shown in Darnell that would qualify for a "heavy-set" person and therefore represent credible evidence that Prayer Man is Stanton...The Prayer Man side sees this as clearly as we do only they ignore it because they are not interested in the correct forensic evidence and are trying to force Prayer Man to be Oswald like school kids...

Stancak:    " Chris:

My intention with that doorway was not to be accurate. "

There is really no need to take this source seriously...No one asks Davidson why he is helping prove Prayer Man is Oswald if he already said Prayer Man is a woman?...It's kind of goofy...

Walton's block model is regressive and useless...   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 22, 2018, 03:30:46 AM



    Running Woman is Peggy Burney due to the skirt and blouse matching...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Matthew Finch on May 22, 2018, 12:49:27 PM
The Prayer Man promoters keep getting away with denying the Davidson enhancement...The Davidson enhancement in itself proves Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...When it was first posted over 2 years ago every ROKC member who saw it admitted it looked like a woman...They then backed-off saying yes it did appear like a woman but was a freak image that appeared because of photographic glitches...Rubbish...The woman's face is a real part of the Wiegman celluloid frame and the Murphy cult has gotten away with ignoring sound scientific evidence...

Davidson is all you need and it credibly shows the face of Sarah Stanton on Prayer Man and not Lee Harvey Oswald...Stancak is wasting the JFK research community's time with his cartoons that try to force Oswald's image on to Prayer Man...The moderators are allowing Stancak to basically do what Cinque and Fetzer did... 

Credible research looks at all evidence objectively and actively seeks evidence that solves an issue one way or the other...The Prayer Man people deliberately ignore evidence and then use mob tactics to get biased moderators to censor those with the facts...

Davidson avoids answering why he helps promote a computer graphic showing Oswald while he himself publicly committed to Prayer Man being a woman...What sense does that make and why is the time of other researchers being wasted? 

By the way, like Stancak, Davidson has drawn invalid height lines across the portal face that do not conform to the Depository front wall and its perspective plane...Other researchers are uncredibly mute on this and don't call out Davidson and Stancak on this disqualifying violation of science...They respond with ignoring...   

Hang on, so he is the only reference point one needs to assert that PM is Sarah, but also most of what he has done is invalid? Am I missing something here?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 22, 2018, 03:36:00 PM
Hang on, so he is the only reference point one needs to assert that PM is Sarah, but also most of what he has done is invalid? Am I missing something here?
His enhancement of the Wiegman film contains enough resolution to determine the face is a woman...I am 100% positive if we could get relatives of Stanton to show us a photo of her it would look like the woman's face in Davidson's enhancement...

Davidson posted a graphic where the height lines comparing Prayer Man and Frazier were not drawn according to perspective...It was in an attempt to assist Andrej Stancak show via computer graphic cartoons that Prayer Man was Oswald...Davidson's enhancement is valid and does prove Prayer Man is Stanton...His efforts to aid Stancak in showing Prayer Man as Oswald are not valid...

I find it bizarre and uncredible that Davidson could publicly say Prayer Man was a woman and then aid Stancak in trying to prove Prayer Man was Oswald and no one calls him on it...That is not credible research...

Also, Stancak has fabricated a second woman in the portal in order to remove the identification of Stanton from Prayer Man...The moderators are all over someone who tries to show Prayer Man is Stanton (which he is) but don't say a word to Stancak who is inventing non-existent people in the portal and badly mis-representing key evidence features in his graphics...The woman he shows in his graphic behind Frazier does not exist...Stancak fabricated her...Stancak also places Shelley on the landing in his graphic even though the film evidence shows Shelley walking up the Elm St extension with Lovelady...These are disqualifying mistakes yet no one says a word...

Prayer Man has to be Stanton because once you remove Stancak's bogus Stanton that he fabricated the only person Frazier could be talking to when he mentioned talking to Sarah is Prayer Man...Pauline Sanders is the only other option and she's too far away and to the rear...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 22, 2018, 04:02:26 PM

I believe I recall the possibility that CarolReed was at some point mis-identified as PeggyBurney. My conclusion is that the woman with either red hair or a red scarf, light colored blouse, and dark skirt seen with GloriaCalvery, KaranHicks, and KarenWestbrook, is CarolReed, aka RunningWoman. Admittedly a conclusion, but based on situational events as they were occurring. But, if wrong, so be it.


  Oh yeah, I think you already told me that...In any case the identity of Running Woman is irrelevant...What counts is she was standing next to Gloria Calvery in the motorcade spectators and ran after her to the steps...Since Stancak's imaginary Stanton that he places behind Frazier doesn't exist the only option for Stanton is Prayer Man whom Frazier is obviously speaking to in Couch/Darnell despite the uncredible denials of false moderators...


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 22, 2018, 04:21:17 PM
For clarification, but speaking only for myself, I do not consider anyone to be "he is the only reference point one needs to assert that PM is Sarah".

As previously stated, I am unable to embrace the PrayerPersonImage "facial enhancement" often attributed to ChrisDavidson, but I do interpret what I see of the image, unenhanced, and conclude that there is no reliable evidence indicating the PrayerPersonImage is that of a male.

I do not wish to debate said enhancement, either way. However, my conclusion that the PrayerPersonImage is that of a female, and very likely then TexasSchoolBookDepository Building employee SarahStanton is said female, relies on situational event testimony/statements made by TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance landing and stairs occupants at the time of filming from a moving camera a few seconds after the DealeyPlaza assassination of PresidentKennedy and wounding of GovernorConnally.


EDIT: For the record, an observation, early on by a then researcher/author, regarding the image facial area caused my interest to research said image. And, I place valuable reliance upon assistance from the research of others to develop my conclusion that the PrayerWomanImage most likely represents SarahJuanitaDeanStanton.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 22, 2018, 05:15:34 PM


    Davidson's enhancement will prove to show Sarah Stanton's face at the best levels of technical analysis...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 22, 2018, 05:25:25 PM

  Oh yeah, I think you already told me that...In any case the identity of Running Woman is irrelevant...What counts is she was standing next to Gloria Calvery in the motorcade spectators and ran after her to the steps...Since Stancak's imaginary Stanton that he places behind Frazier doesn't exist the only option for Stanton is Prayer Man whom Frazier is obviously speaking to in Couch/Darnell despite the uncredible denials of false moderators...

Well, again, a conclusion. But, I do believe that KarenWestbrook, KaranHicks, CaroleReed, and GloriaCalvery were standing, as seen in the ZFilm, side by side on the Elm St sidewalk. And, said conclusion indicates that when viewing a quality ZFilm, Ms Westbrook is wearing a light blue scarf.

The group has JohnTemplin standing next to GloriaCalvery, to her right based upon my conclusion, and ErnestBrandt to JohnTemplin's right.

EDIT: Noteworthy is the fact that references to named individuals is actually in reference to PersonImages that appear to represent those named, from visual indications as well as additional situational event indications.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 22, 2018, 06:24:46 PM

    The trouble with that is there is no woman with a light blue scarf in the grouping you cited...

Not a problem for me, Brian. But, IIRC, the "grouping" was established by statements/testimony. Using additional indications, I concluded the L to R "Image" standing order to be representative of KarenWestbrook, KaranHicks, CaroleReed, and GloriaCalvery.

That said, the Image I have interpreted to represent Ms Westbrook appears to me to be wearing a light blue scarf.

I consider the correct identification of "RunningWomanImage", however minor, to be valuable in confirming the correct situational event of the entrance portal stairs/landing as filmed.

Should provable reliable evidence be established that strongly indicates otherwise, so be it. However, my current level of understanding of said filmed images is where I am now.

But, I do have to recognize and confirm much of "my level of understanding" of the specified situational event, has been aided by the research conclusions of BrianDoyle.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 22, 2018, 10:33:30 PM
The third woman to Calvery's left in the Newsweek Zapruder image with the names of the individuals could have a light blue scarf...It's hard to tell...I think she is labeled "Jane Berry" but closer examination will show there's a second woman in that same slot...

I believe the woman you are referring to is seen in Betzner 3 and could be further examined with photo improvements..
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 23, 2018, 07:01:37 PM
Hey Brian, I recently stumbled upon a one frame per second video of the ZFilm with a clear in-motion view of the FourLadiesImage standing on the sidewalk just to JohnTemplinImage's left.
And, there appears to be a momentary head-turn to their right early own, by the first LadyImage, L to R, and later there appears to be a momentary head-turn to their right by the second LadyImage, L to R. The slight head turns indicate both ladies to appear to have dark hair.


Unfortunately the "enhanced brightness" quite likely brightens a light blue scarf to a near white color.

Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 24, 2018, 04:57:10 PM
To reiterate...Stancak has fabricated a second woman on the landing behind Frazier whom he is passing off as Stanton because he is desperate to avoid the obvious...This alone solves the Prayer Man issue because once you don't allow Stancak's fabricated Stanton Prayer Man is the only person whom Stanton could be...The only other option would be Tiny Woman (who is Pauline Sanders) but that can't be because Tiny Woman is too small and too far behind Frazier to be anyone who he was talking to when Calvery ran up...

The Prayer Man issue and those who stubbornly back it has destroyed the credibility of the entire assassination research community...Biased moderators impose strict scrutiny on methodology and evidence when it comes to our claims (that they still haven't answered) but they then allow Stancak to make such brazenly bogus claims without such scrutiny or demands of strict evidence...Rubbish science is praised while awful flaws in evidence are not even detected...Strategic censorship protects the favored coddled offerers of this rotten research while no credible evidence is good enough from our side...At least not any that can't be flagrantly ignored with dishonest complaints about site rules violations and the subsequent censoring banning that follows and protects the violators...The JFK research community has been destroyed by incompetent moderators who are just members of the Murphy mob who obtain a moderator avatar who do not necessarily possess the ability or intelligence to oversee the high level research material they have been put in charge of...

Stancak hasn't come back and adjusted the 3 inch too long leg mannequin calibrated by the measuring stick because he can't and he has already refuted himself...Kamp tries to ignore this because he knows he's beaten...The dishonesty of the DiEugenio-led community is epic in its lies and ignoring of this...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 24, 2018, 09:30:40 PM
The third woman to Calvery's left in the Newsweek Zapruder image with the names of the individuals could have a light blue scarf...It's hard to tell...I think she is labeled "Jane Berry" but closer examination will show there's a second woman in that same slot...

I believe the woman you are referring to is seen in Betzner 3 and could be further examined with photo improvements..

When viewing Betzner3, I believe I see two of the four LadyImages, representing GloriaCalvery, and the other LadyImage, either KaranHicks or KarenWestbrook. But, I do believe the SSAgentImage, EmoryRoberts perhaps, is blocking the CaroleReed LadyImage.  But, SSAgentImage could also be blocking the KaranHicks LadyImage, which then indicates the KarenWestbrook LadyImage being visible.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 24, 2018, 11:24:37 PM
Larry:  I am able to enlarge Betzner 3 on my cell phone...It is difficult to see any scarf on the woman to Calvery's left in Betzner 3 when enlarged to maximum extent...Not sure which one we are looking at there or if the angle simply obscures the scarf...In your video the scarf is pretty far back and a lot of hair is seen so it could be that the scarf rides too far back and that is the same woman...Like you say, the Carol Reed woman is short and therefore obscured...I wonder if we could get height records on her?... Edit:  On closer examination I can see the scarf and it is definitely the same woman...

In any case, Mr Kamp lied...When enlarged to maximum extent Tall Woman clearly has the face of Gloria Calvery...We already know the woman Karen Westbrook claimed to be Calvery isn't her simply by looking at her...Mr Kamp typically tries to seize control of the narrative and he has a whole cadre of dishonest researchers who allow him to get away with this nefarious deception...Kamp tries to divert the issue to confirmation of my speaking to Calvery's son however he is doing it in order to avoid acknowledging that the two Calvery's are already quite distinct in the presently available images and that the biggest enlargement of Betzner 3 makes it more than clear that Tall Woman is most definitely Calvery without a doubt...The only reason we are still arguing this is because of a very sick individual who isn't afraid to use such gutter tactics along with the uncredible community members who allow him knowing the whole time we are posting the truth... 

The Prayer Man pseudo-analysts are playing a game of politeness however it is a false affectation that is being used to cover up rotten claims they still haven't accounted for...They are not being forced to answer our evidence that already makes their bogus offerings moot...

Stancak already jumped the shark on credibility when he refused to answer for his drawing a bent left leg over the radiator...       
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 25, 2018, 05:43:21 AM
I think it important to recognize the likelihood that a possibility exists that LadyImage aka SharonSimmons was mistakenly identified as KarenWestbrook. And, that helped to cause the two LadyImages seen with SharonSimmonsImage to be mistakenly identified as GloriaCalvery and KaranHicks, instead of GloriaHolt and StellaJacob. An easy error, as the images of the seven ladies appear near to each other.

As for the landing/stairs MannequinImage exhibition, it is just that, and has no evidentiary value. It is beyond doubt that the MannequinImages are being "positioned" to illustrate a situational event that no corroborating evidence has been provided as confirmation that it did occur as it is being presented.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 25, 2018, 04:42:57 PM
Michael Walton ignores all the evidence that Prayer Man is Stanton and says it cannot be determined...While his theory that Oswald would not have such a complex conspiracy surrounding him and be allowed to bungle it by being seen outside is correct and I agree with it, Walton does not discuss the best evidence that disproves it at a scientific level...

When the Davidson enhancement was first shown 2 years ago every single ROKC member who looked at it reacted that it was a woman...It is not accurate to say the image does not credibly possess enough clearness to determine sex because all those who looked at it agreed it was a woman...It is in the thread record that dishonest persons like Kamp and Stancak are ignoring...You can look at all the threads on this subject and the Prayer Man people have ALL backed off and conceded it was a woman at some point...They then scrambled to say the real issue was site conduct or politeness while also ignoring that they themselves were the worst violators of that...I was then bullied off both research websites by corrupted moderators who contrived rules violations when they were the ones violating their own posted site rules... Both websites have degenerated in to groups of friends pretending they are following formal academic rules...The idea is the 95% of the membership who backed Murphy will not have to admit they were wrong or showed a serious lack of skill (incompetency)...

Anyway, Walton ignores the fact that we have credibly identified Gloria Calvery in Betzner 3 and she is "Tall Woman"...Graves & Larsen were correct and Calvery is at the base of the steps already in Couch/Darnell...This is being deliberately denied by the "cheerleader" researchers on the Education Forum who simply chant that Prayer Man is Oswald and don't suffer the severe demands for rigor those who post the true identity of Prayer Man are harassed with by clearly biased gang-member moderators...I see Graves has suffered the censorship fate of those who try to post the truth on Prayer Man...Post my correct evidence on the EF and you will soon find yourself having difficulty posting...If you don't like it you can go somewhere else...A natural fate that the losers don't protest while bully administration openly censors opponents of the Murphy gang and therefore destroy the academic credibility of the JFK research community so the right egos can remain in charge right or wrong...

We have proven Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton because the Davidson enhancement shows her face...We have also proven Prayer Man is Stanton because the timing of Calvery already being at the steps proves that she had already shouted on the way there and therefore Frazier was already in to the process of asking "Sarah" what Calvery had said like he stated...Once you remove Stancak's fabricated Stanton that he made up out of thin air the only person Stanton could be is wide-hipped Prayer Man since the only other alternative is Pauline Sanders who is obviously too far away and behind Frazier for him to talk to... Walton, John Butler, Stancak, and Kamp all ignore this and therefore relinquish credibility...Stancak thinks all that is required is to force Oswald's image in to crammed computer graphics mannequins of Prayer Man...He has yet to answer why he has drawn a bent left leg over the radiator and none of the Murphy cult have asked him...These people are not objectively interested in the truth and the moderators help them avoid answering it with false accusations of site rules violations and censorship...Ask the Education Forum moderatorship why Stancak is being protected from answering how his drawing a bent leg over a radiator refutes his garbage graphics? My proving that Stancak is showing a radiator as a bent leg refutes his foot on the step mannequin and proves Prayer Man is standing on the landing...Credible moderation would realize it dispenses the need to refine his mannequin because it proves it can't have a bent leg... It has been stated by an EF moderator that content doesn't count and that the only thing that counts is how members treat each other (???)...Remember this is coming from a moderation team that rides people's backs on "speculation"...When you show hard proof like the hips and radiator the moderators help the violators ignore it...The site is then a safe place for Bart Kamp's trolling evasion of these hard points of proof...The Education Forum members are smart enough to see Stancak desperately clinging to stretched politeness in order to compensate for the bogusness of his claims...They tolerate it because they are playing a dishonest hand in order to save face on my demolishing the Murphy BS...

David Josephs has been posting for years that Prayer Man is very definitely Oswald...He then backed off and allowed that Prayer Man might be a woman after seeing my evidence, however he had the chutzpah to say he was demanding strict methodology and evidence - funny, he didn't demand that of himself when he was making the absolute claim that Prayer Man was Oswald...What an obvious phony who scampers right to the credulous protection of moderation corruption right on cue while credible analysts are persecuted because of him...He's safe on the Deep Politics board with the friend's clique protecting him while the moderation pretends to be practicing a high standard of oversight instead of just protecting the favored members...   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 25, 2018, 09:15:14 PM
That's no more valid than saying the PM must be Oswald because it "looks like Oswald".

A person who was objectively seeking the correct evidence would not ignore that once we prove Stancak has drawn a bent leg over the radiator that it proves that Prayer Man is standing on the landing...Once you prove Prayer Man is standing on the landing that proves that his height is too short to be Oswald...Also: Once you properly reject Stancak's fabricated Stanton that he pulled out of thin air and placed behind Frazier the only person Frazier could be talking to is Prayer Man (Stanton) since the only remaining woman is Sanders and she's way too far behind Frazier to be spoken to...Prayer Man's hips are also visibly too wide to be Oswald...

We have proven Calvery is at the base of the steps in Couch/Darnell...That means she had just finished running to the steps shouting "The president has been shot"...That means Frazier has heard her and the timing involved with a person who is witnessing gunshots and an assassination is one where he would not have delayed asking Stanton what Calvery had just said...Frazier is facing and talking to Prayer Man in Couch/Darnell which means Prayer Man has to be Stanton...

You also cannot compare the less clear Darnell image where people were saying Prayer Man looked like Oswald to the best clarity enlargement and technical enhancement that Davidson represents...It wouldn't be scientifically accurate or honest...Apples and rotten oranges...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 25, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
Who's "we"?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 26, 2018, 05:24:23 PM
Michael Clark ignores the clear evidence that Oswald was tightly controlled...Everything about him shows strict oversight by his Intelligence handlers...I don't have the time or energy to detail all the examples but anyone can see Oswald was a tight operator directly controlled by CIA at all times...He followed orders during his false defection and did was he was told...He followed strict orders during his agent provocateur work pretending he was a Fair Play Castro supporter in hostile territory...His doings during the Mexico City frame up shows a person who was not free to wander...His taking the Depository job showed a person who did what he was ordered...His jumping out of the bus to get home on time to make the Texas Theater rendezvous shows a person who was following strict orders that day...Oswald's not breaking cover at the police station shows a person who did what he was told...

Clark and the Prayer Man gang have no right to ignore Carolyn Arnold's witnessing...The liar Kamp knows Mrs Arnold's witnessing is damning to the Prayer Man theory so he lies and says the real witness Arnold is lying...Mrs Arnold wasn't lying...Kamp is the one who is lying...Oswald followed orders to be in the 2nd floor lunch room because that kept him out of the way from the 6th floor where he was being framed and also kept him away from the 1st floor where he might also be seen or picked up by the Secret Service...It's where Baker & Truly saw his lunch on the table and Coke that evidenced him being there during the shots...

The idea that the biggest organized conspiracy in American history allowed the patsy to wander outside and blow the game is silly and the people who blithely suggest it are also silly...Just like ignoring Davidson's clear image of Sarah Stanton is equally silly...The community is at an unrecoverable low because of it, and that might actually be the intent...And those doing it might be agents...

The key to persons like Clark is they arrogantly allow themselves the right to ignore the solid evidence I've posted above...

I'm still waiting for Clark or Laverick to explain what right Stancak has to continue when I have caught him drawing a bent leg over what clearer images prove to be the radiator...Apparently these researchers allow themselves the right to ignore condemning conclusive proof...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 26, 2018, 06:11:25 PM
Who's "we"?
Pardon my butting in John, but I do recognize that "proven" is a strong term, especially to anyone unconvinced. That said, I do believe that through discussion posting, BrianDoyle and myself have presented evidence that enhances our conclusion that the LadyImage seen entering the stairway, and apparently "announcing" what she has just witnessed, represents GloriaCalvery. And, said evidence also indicates that the LadyImage to her right entering the stairway, represents KaranHicks.

Conclusions? Yes. Indicative evidence? Yes. Where BrianDoyle and I tend to disagree, slightly, is the value of the PrayerPersonFacialEnhancement attributed to ChrisDavidson. I have not been able to embrace said enhancement. However, I do not care to debate the issue.


As for as an opinion that "PM must be Oswald because it looks like Oswald", it is my conclusion that "seeing Oswald" is a choice for "wishes to see". However, I do believe that I understand the context of the statement.

I base my conclusions about the issue on the research, and my studies of said research, and make no claim of discovery. No Edsel here.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 26, 2018, 06:26:39 PM
Brian, your post/reply indicates, at least to me, the possibility that the SecondFloor LunchRoomEncounter was actually an accident, caused by the immediate response actions of DPD MotorcycleOfficer MarrionBaker. It just seems to me that the Encounter dissipates a LeeOswaldPatsy situation, although does not eliminate it.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 26, 2018, 08:50:54 PM
That's why Truly & Baker helped cover it up by not mentioning all the particulars like the lunch on the table, Coke, and specific location...The massive conspiracy that ordered Oswald to be in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots is the same one that kept Baker from clearly defining his witnessing in his first day affidavit...I have no doubt Oswald simply dutifully obeyed his Intel instructions to be in the 2nd floor lunch room under the guise of staying away from the Secret Service...Little did Oswald know the whole intent was to frame him as being the shooter...Lee Harvey Oswald was killed by Ruby because eventually the truth would have gotten out of his presence in the 2nd floor lunch room and Carolyn Arnold's witnessing of it...

You can show Sarah Stanton's face on Prayer Man and it still isn't good enough for these nuts...
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 27, 2018, 04:08:37 PM
Michael Walton has backed-off and backslid into useless blather...

The Prayer Man gang forgets Billy Lovelady mentioned those around him from his left to his right in order...The names he gave were Bill Shelley, Buell Frazier, and Sarah Stanton...One look at Altgens shows Shelley, Frazier and Prayer Man in those spots...Stancak tries to steal the narrative and invent new Stantons out of thin air, but the real factual and evidentiary record shows Prayer Man to be in the spot that Frazier and Lovelady mentioned Sarah Stanton as being in...

It is important to note that Kamp and DiEugenio do not respond when you ask them what a voice stress analysis would show for the Baker & Truly CBS interview...It is obvious to me that they already know the answer which is why they ignore it and the Davidson enhancement that they lied around...

David Josephs pretends to lecture that he knows exactly what Baker would be looking at as he coursed by on the 2nd floor landing...I think Baker saw Oswald flinch away from the vestibule window and went after him as showing a sign of guilt...The reason Baker omitted this from his first day affidavit is because it showed that Oswald was flat-footed and in position in that window as if he had been there for a while...The Coke and lunch on the table Baker & Truly witnessed showed that Oswald had been exactly where Carolyn Arnold had seen him 6 minutes earlier...Bart Kamp is now lying around this because of its obviousness while the rest of the community follows his ill-minded lead...Baker is very vague in his description of exactly what he saw in that vestibule window...The reason for that is because he saw something very precise that indicated Oswald had been stationary in that spot and therefore had not just ran down from the 6th floor...This isn't rocket science, however the Prayer Man cult will not admit the obvious because they know it refutes their bogus Murphy claim...YES - Baker and Truly offered sketchy testimony, but not because Oswald wasn't in the 2nd floor lunch room...They were mushy on their witnessing exactly because they DID witness Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room and the conspirators knew it exonerated Oswald...Anyone who lets the crank Bart Kamp lead them is extremely foolish...They are not good researchers and are not responsible for correctly guiding the community... 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 28, 2018, 01:17:56 AM

It is important to note that Kamp and DiEugenio do not respond when you ask them what a voice stress analysis would show for the Baker & Truly CBS interview...It is obvious to me that they already know the answer which is why they ignore it and the Davidson enhancement that they lied around...


VSA is not good enough for most courts and for those who might even consider using it, the interview conditions would have to be controlled. You can't use a random tape alone, for that to be of any significance you'd have to compare it with other examples of him speaking and even then, if you could prove that Baker(or anyone) was nervous wouldn't prove he was lying.
Like a polygraph, if the subject shows signs of nervousness when asked a certain question, it's certainly interesting but you'd have just a good a chance at determining if he/she is being deceptive by flipping a coin.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 28, 2018, 01:54:28 AM

Stancak already jumped the shark on credibility when he refused to answer for his drawing a bent left leg over the radiator...       

I can't really tell for sure if it's part of PM or the radiator, I tend to believe it's the former, that PM's body is blocking it and just wondering if Duncan has looked at it and what he found/thinks.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 28, 2018, 02:45:48 AM
... there is no reliable evidence indicating the PrayerPersonImage is that of a male.

... my conclusion that the PrayerPersonImage is that of a female.. relies on situational event testimony/statements made by TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance landing and stairs occupants...


Testimony that is unreliable and proves nothing(just google it, there's scores of articles citing significant research) while ignoring the fact that because it looks a little like Oswald in the Darnell footage strongly suggests this person to be male.
You keep saying the same things over and over but you will not answer my simple questions because you think you'll only be repeating yourself?
Where or when did you ever say/write/find/quote/research that testimony is reliable and conclusions should be based on it?

This woman's work might help you
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 28, 2018, 04:05:49 AM
His enhancement of the Wiegman film contains enough resolution to determine the face is a woman...I am 100% positive if we could get relatives of Stanton to show us a photo of her it would look like the woman's face in Davidson's enhancement...

Does Lovelady look like himself in the same frames? Not from what I've seen, I know it's him only from other more solid evidence, like Altgens, which to some is still considered a fake. Have you seen an enhancement of BL's face from Wiegman, would you even want to, just for comparison purposes?
You've also never seen an image of Stanton but you believe it looks like her, a complete leap of faith and very typical of the "research community" you seem to want to defend.

If the real Stanton looked as unsightly as what has been posted on page1 we'll know exactly why she stood at the back and out of the way.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 28, 2018, 05:38:35 AM
I can't really tell for sure if it's part of PM or the radiator, I tend to believe it's the former, that PM's body is blocking it and just wondering if Duncan has looked at it and what he found/thinks.


    Ah ha...

   Except the clearest shots show the white of the radiator which would be impossible if Oswald's dark pants were blocking it...They ignore it because they know it refutes them by itself and they literally can't answer it...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 28, 2018, 05:40:51 AM
VSA is not good enough for most courts and for those who might even consider using it, the interview conditions would have to be controlled. You can't use a random tape alone, for that to be of any significance you'd have to compare it with other examples of him speaking and even then, if you could prove that Baker(or anyone) was nervous wouldn't prove he was lying.
Like a polygraph, if the subject shows signs of nervousness when asked a certain question, it's certainly interesting but you'd have just a good a chance at determining if he/she is being deceptive by flipping a coin.
Ah ha...And if it showed low voice stress it wouldn't indicate truth...

And we can just ignore how Carolyn Arnold's witnessing corroborates it or just say she's lying like Kamp..

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 28, 2018, 05:51:44 AM
Does Lovelady look like himself in the same frames? Not from what I've seen, I know it's him only from other more solid evidence, like Altgens, which to some is still considered a fake. Have you seen an enhancement of BL's face from Wiegman, would you even want to, just for comparison purposes?
You've also never seen an image of Stanton but you believe it looks like her, a complete leap of faith and very typical of the "research community" you seem to want to defend.

If the real Stanton looked as unsightly as what has been posted on page1 we'll know exactly why she stood at the back and out of the way.
Once again, this is very loose analysis...It looks like reckless excuse-making from the look of it...

1)  Yes, Lovelady looks like himself...

2)  I believe it looks like Stanton because she has pudgy cheeks...She also has wide hips in Darnell like a "heavy-set" person would have...

3)  Barry, Prayer Man is 100% Sarah Stanton with certainty...You never answered the point that since Stancak's Stanton whom he places behind Frazier doesn't exist that the only other alternative is Prayer Man...

4)  I don't think you arguing seriously when I look at your last comment...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 28, 2018, 07:46:34 AM
Testimony that is unreliable and proves nothing(just google it, there's scores of articles citing significant research) while ignoring the fact that because it looks a little like Oswald in the Darnell footage strongly suggests this person to be male.
You keep saying the same things over and over but you will not answer my simple questions because you think you'll only be repeating yourself?
Where or when did you ever say/write/find/quote/research that testimony is reliable and conclusions should be based on it?

This woman's work might help you

I do not need any help. I have concluded, after at least four years, maybe five studying research of the issue of PrayerPersonImage, that the image represents a female, most likely TSBD Building employee SarahStanton.

The SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter of DPD Officer Baker and TSBD Superintendent Truly with LeeOswald at about 12:31/12:32pm CST removes LeeOswald from the landing during filming.

My primary reliance is on the testimony of known stairs/landing occupants/eyewitnesses that does not indicate any male in the location of the PrayerPersonImage.

And, there are stairs/landing occupants that specified that they did not see LeeOswald there during the assassination shooting.

I have not told you what to conclude, and I owe you no additional explanation. You can, and should, make your own conclusions. However, if you want to specifically dispute my stated conclusion, you need to provide evidence that disproves said conclusions, as well stating your conclusions about the PrayerPersonImage identification.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 29, 2018, 05:56:16 PM
Zambanini has found Pauline Sanders' photo in a High School PTA photo...If this is the right person it shows a jowly Pauline Sanders...

While it is always good to have further elucidation on assassination witnesses, as far as Prayer Man, this evidence does nothing to change the fact I have positively identified Prayer Man as being Sarah Stanton...

We already knew the woman Stancak has isolated with her back to the glass is Sanders since she testified she was in the back row of those in the portal...The back row is up against the glass, so therefore "Tiny Woman" is Sanders...

If you want to know what the truth is on Prayer Man watch what Kamp and crew avoid when they bring the discussion to their censored forums...Besides all of my evidence that proves Prayer Man is Stanton, they are ignoring their own evidence that shows there were only two women on the landing in Couch/Darnell...If they followed their own evidence they would realize that they have positively identified Pauline Sanders as being Tiny Woman...That means that the only candidate for Sarah Stanton would be the purse-holding and dress-wearing Prayer Man...Stancak is a rather dishonest bugger...He is claiming Stanton is a woman who is standing behind Frazier but their own Darnell images show no such person in that spot...Stancak has invented this imaginary Stanton exactly because he knows he is in trouble once you admit Tiny Woman is Sanders...Look at how the others ignore this and avoid talking about it in their cheerleading posts...

This issue is due to a failure in moderation...The Murphy cult is operating in a dishonest way that avoids provable evidence and the moderators who have banned the opposition are cooperating in allowing them...There are still two unanswered sound pieces of evidence out there that those who have collected in favor of the Murphy theory are refusing to answer...The first is that the clearest images of Darnell show a white radiator in the spot where Stancak needs to have Prayer Man's bent left leg in order to have one foot on the step...This is conclusive proof that Stancak is wrong and it refutes his foot on the step claim...The Murphy crazies claim Oswald was wearing dark pants...If he was it is impossible that any white would be seen where Stancak needs that bent left leg to be...In the clearest images you can see the division between Prayer Man's coat or dress and the full white radiator that happens to match the known dimensions of the radiator...There's a clear vertical line there between the radiator and dress...There is no bent leg...This is game, set, and match as far as Prayer Man because it proves in the evidence that is visible at currently available resolutions that Prayer Man has both feet on the landing...That means, by Stancak's own admission, that Prayer Man is too short to be Oswald...I have never seen Zambanini confront this...Instead she is over on the Education Forum fraternizing with the Kamp gang saying "Prayer Man is LHO" while ignorantly missing this conclusive proof...There's a reason why Stancak and Kamp do not use the clearest images...It is because they know it shows this refuting proof...The moderators do not demand it of them while ignorant researchers compliment their work...

The second piece of proof is that Tiny Woman (Sanders) is simply too far behind Frazier to be the woman Frazier said he spoke to, asking what Calvery had said...Any look at Tiny Woman would show that it would take a hard 180 degree turn to ask her what Calvery had said...Prayer Man, on the other hand, is directly in front of Frazier and would be a natural choice to be "Sarah" since it is the direction Frazier is facing in Couch/Darnell and is also dovetailed in with the timing of Calvery already having shouted the president has been shot... Ergonomically, and according to human behavior, Frazier would have been more likely to ask Calvery herself since she was coming up the steps toward him rather than contort 180 degrees to ask a woman he doesn't even see...Like I said, look at what the Murphy gang avoids discussing if you want to know the truth...There is no way that during a situation where Frazier heard gunshots and saw people running in panic that he would delay asking Sarah what Calvery had said...It is more than obvious that Frazier is in the process of asking Sarah what Calvery had said in Couch/Darnell and that is what we are seeing...Look at the Murphy crew categorically ignore this on the EF - they know it's true...When the original thread was shut down on the Education Forum it was done under the justification that the Prayer Man people were ignoring the evidence of the other side...

They are ignoring Prayer Man's wide hips in a dress that is clearly visible in the clearest images they avoid and the moderators don't demand...

These people know Stancak's Stanton is imaginary which is why none of them claim that is Stanton in the thread...This is linguistic forensic evidence that they know Stancak's fabricated Stanton doesn't exist...


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 30, 2018, 08:30:27 PM
If you go to Find A Grave Zambanini has found what she thinks might be photos of Sarah Stanton...She has posted them under the Sarah Juanita Dean Stanton entry on Find A Grave...

Find A Grave reveals Larry and Jack Daniel who were the sons of Mitchell Daniel and Sarah Stanton...
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 31, 2018, 03:32:21 PM
Sarah Stanton's grand daughter sent me this image of her grand mother Sarah..

(https://scontent.fman2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-0/p280x280/34121278_871820993001516_234653704265924608_n.png?_nc_cat=0&oh=a0ce7fdf930aa9967e77a21fc2b65f4a&oe=5B7859E1)

.As you can see she is a heavy-set woman who matches the exact height of Prayer Man...The hair is the right length too...

Sarah's daughter chimed-in and said her mother was "between 5 foot 4 and 6"...If you recall I have been saying for years my height analysis placed Prayer Man at 5 foot 5 inches...

Prayer Man has both feet on the landing and squares with Sarah Stanton's known height...The width at her hips also identically matches...

(Stancak is currently over on the Education Forum pointing out two women who are not Stanton...Just to show the wild and off to the races credibility of Stancak and his pseudo analyses...He has made a new claim on Stanton using two persons who obviously have nothing to do with anything while being ignorant of this new hard evidence that the Murphy crazies are ignoring - Though politely and therefore meeting the intellectual demands of the internet overseers)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on May 31, 2018, 08:14:48 PM
I still favour Pauline Sanders as being Prayer woman.
Here's a Michael Walton comparison. I must say, I am impressed by his attempted match.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5RoOu3QO66Y/WxA7v7enw2I/AAAAAAAAFQQ/wpqlKYL8aSMw_rsBe62yf6HhH4rpErxQgCLcBGAs/s1600/sanders-pm.gif)(http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Sanders.jpg)

Pauline Sanders said that she was standing at the East side nearest the door.

If you look at things from Pauline Sanders looking forward and facing the camera perspective ,ie, her looking towards the camera, then HER virtual East looking forward would be to her hand right side, and that's exactly where we see Prayer woman is standing.

Quote: "I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance"
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 31, 2018, 08:31:38 PM
Duncan:  Prayer Man is in the furthest west side of the entrance...She is also at the front of the landing and not the "back row" like Sanders said...The rows are oriented front to back...

The problem with that is who is Tiny Woman then? Also Frazier is facing and talking to Prayer Man at that instant...We have established Gloria Calvery has gotten to the bottom of the steps by the time of Couch/Darnell so Frazier has to be talking to Sarah at that point since it is very unlikely he would delay asking what Calvery had said during an ongoing presidential assassination...The timing makes it Stanton, as do the hips...

In my opinion Walton offers a very unsophisticated, unskilled version that ignores good evidence...He just ignores the fact that when Davidson posted his image every single ROKC member who posted agreed it looked like a woman...Pretty good agreement for what Walton smears as a "pixelated blob"...Remember Chris Davidson is a highly credible photo analyst who is regularly used as reference by those on the Education Forum... He is held in high regard and I have never seen any of his findings questioned EXCEPT his Prayer Man Wiegman enhancement where the opposition carefully avoids confronting Davidson directly or answering why they hold him in high regard yet ignore his insistence that his image shows the face of a woman...No, Walton is not what I would call a credible source and his offerings are somewhat lacking in credible detail...

The bottom line is any credible photo expert will confirm that Davidson does show enough valid photogrammetry detail to validly determine the face is that of a woman...As I have been saying for years, this issue is at the level where only the top 3% of skilled analysts will correctly interpret the evidence...And we are dealing with an extremely spoiled/corrupted community that has used disgust over corrupt official sources to justify their own uncarefulness in research... And anyone with common sense would realize my nailing Prayer Man as being 5 foot 5 with this new evidence confirms Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton who just so happened to also be 5 foot 5...To not register how that relates to Davidson showing a female face exhibits a lack of caution in rigor in my opinion...

Prayer Man comes up to Frazier's chin...Frazier was 6 foot 1/2 inch...Subtract 7 1/2 inch for the head and you get 5 foot 5 - exactly what Stanton's daughter said was her height...

And don't forget the hips that match Stanton perfectly and more importantly are obviously too wide to be Oswald...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 31, 2018, 09:21:52 PM

Stancak:   " the height of inseam and therefore the leg length has nothing to do with the overall body height of the mannequin/Prayer Man - it was 5'9'' irrespective of inseam height. "


Again, Stancak makes bizarre statements like this and doesn't receive any chastizing from the obviously biased moderation...

No one asks Stancak how he intends to reduce Prayer Man's inseam by 3 inches without reducing his height by that same necessary 3 inches - since the rest of the body is attached to the leg...

He's stalling because he's caught - Just like last time when he took over a year to answer...

Stancak seems oblivious to his own science where his calibrated measuring sticks don't allow him to reduce by 3 inches without subtracting from Prayer Man's overall height...

Meanwhile he's ignoring all of our evidence - as well as the hips...

Stanton's grand daughter said the image of Stanton on the last page is from 1962 to 1964 and it shows her son Larry Daniel...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on May 31, 2018, 10:42:23 PM
I still favour Pauline Sanders as being Prayer woman.
Here's a Michael Walton comparison. I must say, I am impressed by his attempted match.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5RoOu3QO66Y/WxA7v7enw2I/AAAAAAAAFQQ/wpqlKYL8aSMw_rsBe62yf6HhH4rpErxQgCLcBGAs/s1600/sanders-pm.gif)(http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Sanders.jpg)

Pauline Sanders said that she was standing at the East side nearest the door.

If you look at things from Pauline Sanders looking forward and facing the camera perspective ,ie, her looking towards the camera, then HER virtual East looking forward would be to her hand right side, and that's exactly where we see Prayer woman is standing.

Quote: "I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance"

Hello Duncan, do you remember photo of Pauline Sanders I have sent you last year? I will try to find it again. Remember the right hand was in the same position? I am quite positive it was Pauline.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 01, 2018, 03:31:10 PM
Sarah Stanton's grand daughter sent me this image of her grand mother Sarah..


Nice work Brian!
Did you get a date for the image?
Around 1959 my guess.

Here's a lil blow-up of the reporter with the shadow on his back fwiw.
(https://i.imgur.com/JqOanpg.jpg)
Still think it's shadow or something behind him? I can entertain both.

Also Lovelady doesn't look like himself in Wiegman, he wasn't(and could never be) identified by his facial features but by his position that and the balding head which is amplified, just another titbit we dissagree on but what's new?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 01, 2018, 03:49:03 PM
 Stanton's grand daughter told me "between 1962 and 1964" - though I agree the dates should be further verified...The man is Sarah's son Larry who should be around 21 in that photo...

 I showed the grand daughter the Davidson enhancement and she responded "To be honest with you that woman appears too pretty to be my grand mother"...I explained Frazier's testimony that he was talking to "Sarah" and the timing with Calvery...The grand daughter said there is an aunt "who knew everything you are looking for" but that she's in a nursing home and the grand daughter hasn't spoken to her in years...

 Frazier saying he was talking to Sarah when Calvery ran up and the confirmed 5 foot 5 height cinches it and is verified proof that Prayer Man is Stanton (which I've known for years and we are only having to further prove because of erroneous researchers)...

 "That Woman"  - We don't really need any further proof at that point to disprove the Murphy theory...

The hips are a perfect match and push it beyond a doubt...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Taylor on June 01, 2018, 03:49:48 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/JqOanpg.jpg)


Barry, if you know, what is the source of the above photo and its approximate timeline?  Thanks.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 01, 2018, 04:23:14 PM
Steve here's the full version from Murray, one of at least three he took within perhaps about thirty seconds.
(https://i.imgur.com/TnQTTtO.jpg)
Judging by the crowd I'd say this was around 1:20pm, maybe someone has another idea though,
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 01, 2018, 04:36:33 PM
It just goes to show that anyone with a similar hairline put next to PM works, just as long as your open to the possibility.
Elvis' cousin even.
(https://i.imgur.com/mFjSD1e.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 01, 2018, 04:54:11 PM

Pauline Sanders said that she was standing at the East side nearest the door.
 virtual East looking forward would be to her hand right side

Quote: "I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance"

Hi Duncan...
I notice some quibbling among some of the posters over this absolutely fuzzy grainy photo.
I have no wish to join in on the arguments.
I would like to point out that I feel certain that it is on the west side of the entrance that the individual is standing. I do know the area well and pass by quite frequently.

Has anybody seen the Jack Files videos?
[Silly background music]....sorry


There is another one..... real short


One below that is the most interesting to me-
Snips of films spliced together-
Starting at about 1:40 to about 1:50 or so ...who appears to have the same shade of clothing as the prayer individual. steps out into the foreground or bottom of the film and moves to his left.
He looks on like 'what's happening here'?
 Wearing the same type of shirt as... guess who? Said he wore.

I believe that just might be Lee Harvey Oswald.
 


 

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Taylor on June 01, 2018, 05:22:39 PM
Steve here's the full version from Murray, one of at least three he took within perhaps about thirty seconds.

Thanks Barry, I thought I saw something but was wrong.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 01, 2018, 05:39:14 PM
Once again, this is very loose analysis...It looks like reckless excuse-making from the look of it...

1)  Yes, Lovelady looks like himself...

Far from loose, it's exactly what the experts do, make comparisons.
The point I am making Brian and perhaps I should make it to Duncan directly, is,
can we see an ehancement of Billy Lovelady's face in Weigman?
(https://i.imgur.com/eV7xShY.jpg)
Most of us know it's him already, there is no question, I just would like to see if these enhancement techniques hold any water, he's out on the steps in full sunlight so I assume there's more potential to bring out his features than here was with PM.

(Still looking for a frame that clearly shows the radiator)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 01, 2018, 05:58:34 PM
Hi Duncan...
I would like to point out that I feel certain that it is on the west side of the entrance that the individual is standing.

Hi Jerry, yes I know, that's why I used the word "virtual"

Thanks anyway.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 01, 2018, 06:37:22 PM
Most of us know it's him already, there is no question, I just would like to see if these enhancement techniques hold any water, he's out on the steps in full sunlight so I assume there's more potential to bring out his features than here was with PM.

The Davidson enhancement speaks for itself and was backed by solid metadata that the Prayer Man people answered with contempt by refusing to acknowledge it...

I just posted breakthrough evidence that I'd rather be discussing...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 01, 2018, 07:08:14 PM
Hey Brian,
To me, the photograph seems to show an image of a lady closer to age 60ish, rather than 40ish. But,repeat, seems to show. That said, is it possibly a color photograph that is reproduced in black & white?

In any event, I see similarities in image facial features of the SarahStantonImage that match, at least to some degree, my conclusion based PrayerPersonImage identification.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 01, 2018, 07:37:51 PM
She said it is Larry who was born in '42...If you can figure what age Larry is there you can determine the year of the photo...I also suspect it is later than 1963...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 02, 2018, 02:14:43 AM
I ran across a witness location map.....craigciccone.files
Not the best quality.
Those on the front steps are not indicated.

(https://craigciccone.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/img_3534.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 02, 2018, 02:46:20 AM
The photographed images indicate an age of about 50+ for Ms StantonImage, and about 30+ for the LarryDanielImage.

I do have to conclude that beyond a doubt, Ms SarahStanton and Ms PaulineSanders, are somewhere on the landing as the filming of the portal occurs. Both ladies testified that they were there, and there is other witnessing of their presence as well.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 02, 2018, 04:57:38 AM
Jerry, your map lists Stella Mae Jacob as Gloria Calvery...

Stanton is listed as 108 but without any location...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 02, 2018, 05:04:14 AM
Larry -  I just realized that Prayer Man's right forearm in Darnell is exactly as fat as Stanton's arm in the new photo of her...What I thought was a white sleeve is actually Sarah's fat arm and we have forensic confirmation in that fat arm that it is without a doubt Sarah Stanton...The fat arm would be even more apparent if the purse weren't partially obstructing it by the wrist...Please compare a good enlargement of Prayer Man in Darnell to the fat arm on Sarah...

The fat right forearm can be confirmed by photo analysis...

This is over.......DiEugenio: "When I first looked at the Prayer Man image I thought the person was too stocky to be Oswald"...Please...Ask Jim if he said that and then try to think how that relates to what I am showing here...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 02, 2018, 04:28:20 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/aMYU66S.png)

If it doesn't fit...
Closer to 60 IMO, so in her 70's in 1963, no way it's PM. Full credit to Linda. Brian too since he has ruled out Stanton for me with the image of her he tracked down.
When you actually find whoever PM was it will actually look like him/her and not some old woman nearing retirement why? Because we've already found Frasier a few feet away and that actually looks just like him.

If it doesn't fit...
If it's found that either or even neither, of these two ladies were not on the steps as the motorcade swung by will you be able to carry on? Will it really be that suprising to you?
Have you not come across anyone leaving the position they were camping at to get a better view at the last second?
Use Roy Truly's statements and try and locate him in an image, or another, was the man behind the wall on the knoll still behind the wall as the motorcade aproached his position?
So when Sitzman said they were both still on the bench when she looked there after the shooting.. that's the best evidence?

Where's Cochran when we really need him?

Regarding what Andreaj claims is a short person on the east, I'm not convinced, I don't see anyone there in the moving footage but I should really look again.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 02, 2018, 04:56:54 PM
While I'm thinking of it, this scenario that's been not just been suggested but completely swallowed, that Frasier needed to be told there was a shooting which is based off of his own words that claimed just that, well do you realise how slow this makes him seem and what you have aligned yourself with?
That BWF and perhaps all of the people on the steps hear nothing like shooting and had to be told what just happened even though they were right beneath the alleged SN window.
How slow or high does he have to be to miss it?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 02, 2018, 05:22:25 PM

Sorry but you can photogrammetrically measure the fat forearm seen in both Darnell and the new photo and get a forensic match...It would be an immediate bulls-eye if the purse wasn't partially blocking the wrist area and therefore creating the illusion of Prayer Man's wrist narrowing...Take the corner of the purse away from Prayer Man's wrist in Darnell and you would immediately see that fat forearm extend all the way to the hand and get an instant confirmation of the chubby forearm seen on Sarah in the family photo...

The waist is also measurable and matches that seen in Stanton's family photo...

The Prayer Man people refuse to post my evidence...They let the main Prayer Man supporters take over and control the narrative...They let Kamp deny my conversation with Calvery's son and ignore the evidence it produced and they have refused to post this new image of Stanton on their sites...When I corrected Zambanini on Calvery's location she ignored the correct evidence and returned with accusations of my stealing her work on the Education Forum where I can't defend myself...It speaks something about their character and true purpose...

Barry ignores that I have matched Sarah's family-confirmed 5 foot 5 height to Prayer Man...


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 02, 2018, 05:59:47 PM
I've come across Linda's work before, she's clearly got a passion for this but like me she's not 100% correct alladatime. One of her finds I really liked was Styles:
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/styles-sandra-blow-up.jpg)

How did Linda know it was her? Well IIRC she found a photo of Styles in her office at the TSBD where she was named and then searched the evidence for her, the woman above left matches perfectly it's the same gal, that's why I liked it, smooth work and a real slamdunk.
Now it seems she's no longer Styles but Stanton, so why the change Linda?

If your looking in... I read what you wrote about how Brian got that image and call me an old hippy if you like but I think you two should get together, Brian seems to have a talent for cold calling people.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 02, 2018, 06:06:43 PM
If it doesn't fit...
Closer to 60 IMO, so in her 70's in 1963, no way it's PM.

So you appear to know what age the mystery figure was, Barry. Please share.  ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 02, 2018, 06:13:34 PM
Brian, you used the info posted on the net and got a great result, if that's stealing then we're all thieves but you could have credited her I suppose.
I found Baker meeting Oswald in the DPD and someone else gets credited for it because they parroted it on FB, slightly miffed but also amused because it's the just way she rolls.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 02, 2018, 06:31:20 PM
So you appear to know what age the mystery figure was, Barry. Please share.  ;)

IMHO of course I should have said yes, as always, my best guess is she's no granny.
Male 25-35 I can't see anything else yet.
One suitable alternative candidate, IMHO the best I've seen.
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/jfk-conspiracy-265.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 02, 2018, 07:01:26 PM
As a point of order Sarah's grand daughter told me she thinks the photo is from 1962 to 1964...

She said the man in the photo is Sarah's son Larry...Due to Zambanini's admirable and credited diligent genealogy searches we now know that Larry was Sarah's son and was born in 1942...CREDIT TO ZAMBANINI...So whatever the age of Larry is in that photo is the year it was taken...I think it could be from 1969 or maybe even later but the clothes and photo-tech match the 60's...

Sarah Stanton is proven to be Prayer Man because the 5 foot 5 height that was confirmed by Stanton's grand daughter exactly matches Prayer Man's height when compared to Frazier...I have been posting for several years now that when we finally found a family member or medical records that Stanton would be 5 foot 5 in height...Stanton's grand daughter told me she asked her mother and her mother responded "between 5 foot 4 and 5 foot 6"...

When I back-analyzed Sarah's fat arm in the family photo I realized that Prayer Man's right arm in Darnell matched this chubby forearm perfectly...If you removed the false impression of a narrow wrist caused by the purse blocking part of Prayer Man's right wrist you would see this oversized forearm extend all the way to the hand and therefore matching the same forearm seen in the family photo exactly...

The width of the hips is an exact match...

Checkmate...

(I ask the members to bear more "pathological, hateful, ridiculous and imbecile statements" from myself here) LOL

By the way, Stancak is openly claiming Zambanini's "Sandra Styles" above is Stanton and has matched it to Zambanini's false reference to Stanton's photo that she removed...

My calls for cooperation were met with ignoring and personal abuse from the Prayer Man side...I was also banned from DPF for showing this correct evidence (which is directly against their posted site rules)...
 
DiEugenio: "When I first looked at the Prayer Man image I thought the person was too stocky to be Oswald"
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 02, 2018, 07:20:04 PM
Brian, you used the info posted on the net and got a great result, if that's stealing then we're all thieves but you could have credited her I suppose.
I found Baker meeting Oswald in the DPD and someone else gets credited for it because they parroted it on FB, slightly miffed but also amused because it's the just way she rolls.
My pique is that there's a stabilized clip of all Prayer Man images that you posted in the original thread out there that proves beyond a doubt that Prayer Man could not have had a foot on the step when she pivoted from Wiegman to Darnell...It also shows Sarah fumbling with her purse...

Proving that Prayer Man did not have a foot on the step therefore proves that Prayer Man is exactly Sarah Stanton's now-confirmed 5 foot 5 height...

Back later...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 02, 2018, 08:51:36 PM
Here's one.
I thought someone on the steps was a man based on what I saw in Wiegman and Darnell.
(https://i.imgur.com/dJFbmhQ.jpg)
Reese is indicated above but next to her is a person in black top, an unusual hat and what I thought were trousers, looks like a man to me.
Find the odd hat and find the man I said.
Well someone did and we know exactly who it is now.
What did I learn? Apparently nothing.

Reading between the lines Linda seems to have found earlier images of Stanton that changed her mind with the Styles ID.
(https://i.imgur.com/4JaDIiz.jpg)
I still think she was correct the first time.


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 02, 2018, 09:50:38 PM
My pique is that there's a stabilized clip of all Prayer Man images that you posted in the original thread out there that proves beyond a doubt that Prayer Man could not have had a foot on the step when she pivoted from Wiegman to Darnell...It also shows Sarah fumbling with her purse...

Proving that Prayer Man did not have a foot on the step therefore proves that Prayer Man is exactly Sarah Stanton's now-confirmed 5 foot 5 height...

Back later...

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Prayerstable.gif)(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Prayerstable2.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 03, 2018, 12:55:13 AM
Thanks Duncan...I think maybe the original one also included the Wiegman portions...

This subject is very interesting and shows an interesting angle in human psychology where one group of people on one website can present a set of information that deliberately avoids seriously qualifying other information...For instance Zambanini is receiving the usual automatic praises and congratulations but the people doing it are ignoring that she hasn't acknowledged the correct evidence or put her discoveries to their best use as far as figuring out the correct conclusions to that evidence...

The discovery of images of Pauline Sanders are almost meaningless compared to this new discovery of photos and data from Sarah Stanton's relatives...This is days later and the Education Forum still hasn't brought itself to post the image of Sarah Stanton or discuss the evidentiary significance of her daughter confirming her 5 foot 5 height...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on June 03, 2018, 12:38:38 PM
Brian,

Have you ever thought about just letting this issue go?  You seem obsessed with it to the point of becoming unhinged. Over a month ago, you reached out to me via Sandy Larsen on EF to ask me to post stuff for you on EF.  I then emailed you and your reply was not, "Hi, nice to meet you" but instead "Can't talk...eating...later." Fool that I am, I let you then send me another email but I do regret it and should have listened to my instincts after receiving a reply like that. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on my door trying to recruit me are nicer than your reply to me was, Brian.

I did post a few things for you and the next thing I knew you turned against me, calling my posts over there "blather."  And I, too, don't think that's LHO up on the steps for xxxxxx sake.

So Stancek and others continue to manufacture fake or dubious evidence over on EF trying to prove it's Oswald.  Big deal. And seriously, you actually think this image:

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BfMZIdixGkI/V1aUEP7D9hI/AAAAAAAAAR0/YwPwqICO6Ug4zhPvu82XsXq8xFIGLF95gCLcB/s1600/pw2.jpg)

Shows it's a woman when it shows absolutely nothing of the kind but a bunch of pixelated blobs? It looks like a xxxxing Rorschach test, Brian. Get real.

What was shocking for me, too, after following this thread is that you claim Chris Davidson is an expert on photo analysis.  Chris Davidson? You must not know about the truly hilarious post he updates over on EF about his ridiculous mathematical formulas (dis)proving that the Z film is fake. It's so funny that Greg Parker's people made a parody of it...you should check it out.

To be honest, you're actually starting to sound like Jim DiEugenio, who has a very hard time ever admitting he's wrong about anything.

IMO, it's time to pack up and move on to something more interesting with the Kennedy case, Brian.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 03, 2018, 04:33:34 PM
T'was you who turned against me if you check the record...You forget that you first endorsed my discovering that Andrej Stancak had committed a serious scientific violation of accuracy in his so-called computer graphics...The Education Forum members (the same ones that called for a Lancer award for Kamp) all did their usual and praised Stancak without noticing that he had done exactly what I said he would do if he tried to make Prayer Man's foot reach the step - he refuted himself...He presented a leg that was 3 inches too long...Because of my observation Stancak has to redo his graphic...The level of rigor on the EF is in the gutter because they would have signed-off on that rotten graphic...Instead of being thanked for maintaining valid rigor I get attacked...I don't think you realize those who unfairly dominate the JFK internet are intentionally trying to vilify me and ignore anything I post...The way to look at this is not by who posts the information but by the information itself...Those who are provably wrong on the Prayer Man issue practice a very cowardly and unfair conversion of straight information to attack on the person without ever honestly answering that information...

If you were to practice a more honest level of review you would notice that Larsen stopped posting after I used his correct identification of Gloria Calvery to show the correct timing of Frazier's statement that he was talking to Sarah...The reason I say you betrayed me rather than the other way around is because you abandoned your backing of my correct technical evidence and went right to arguing that the plotters never would have set up such an elaborate plot only to let the patsy spoil it by wandering in to the spotlight on the front steps...You are absolutely correct on that but it isn't the strongest evidence...Humans can be real weasels...When groups of people are aware that they are acting in a cowardly way and tolerating rogue injustice their minds seek to place blame away from themselves...Their minds try to convince themselves that it isn't them and their own personal failings that are the problem but is instead the messenger who has particular problems like being "obsessed", "insulting", or "argumentative", etc...

When Davidson discovered the woman's face I brought it to the Deep Politics board and posted it, congratulating Duncan for finally settling the issue...I was immediately set upon by "experts" David Healy, David Josephs, and Michael Cross who derided me and asked for a draconian amount of evidence in front of the obvious proof I had brought...The moderator Lauren Johnson eventually attacked me against his own rules and suspended me for 3 months chiding "you are not listening to the experts"...Magda Hassan and Lauren then sided with the Prayer Man crew saying Prayer Man was Oswald...When I tried to show them the correct evidence, like the DPF site rules encourage, I was marginalized and persecuted by L Johnson...In his banning logic Peter Lemkin said I was "obsessed"...Of course, it wasn't them who were violating their own rules by abusing their power and refusing to admit my correct evidence...

It is funny that you have no compunction towards the fact that I am responsible for more breakthrough evidence of late in the form of Sarah Stanton's family photo and her relative's confirmation of her 5 foot 5 height...It's funny that rather than be upset that the Education Forum inquisition refuses to post a breakthrough image of Stanton because of its source and are willing to censor the most important evidence to date in order to protect and prolong their provably wrong entries, you turn to me and blame me for posting this vitally sought after material...As if the entire definition of jurisprudence and correct procedure in debate since the Magna Carta could be reversed and the victim blamed for posting the truth others don't want to admit and practice cowardly actions in order to deny...Michael thinks that when groups of people are practicing rogue hypocrisy and deliberately denying correct evidence that the truth-teller is to blame...Hmm...

Meanwhile Stancak is back to his old tricks and is posting that Prayer Man is 10 inches below the top of Frazier's head when actually she is only about 7 and 1/2...Stancak is back to his old business of stretching measurements to fit his Oswald theory rather than credibly showing what is there...

Michael...This single issue has destroyed the credibility of the entire JFK research community...It has led to bully moderation kicking the best and brightest off of JFK research websites in order to preserve the personality domination of unskilled members who insist on putting their personal needs before the previous objective democratic standard they used to practice...The 3 "experts" I was suspended for not listening to never came back to argue the technical evidence that proved I was right...When you have a controlling group favoring you why come back and admit you were wrong when you can bully and ban - right? Nothing like a little directed censorship to allow bullies to avoid admitting they were wrong...It is quite effective when practiced collectively by people who define themselves as not doing that and being morally opposed to it (but then do it anyway when their egos are threatened)...After all it is not horrific dishonesty and corruption it is the fault of the victim who is obviously "obsessed"...Yeah Michael, why bother people by insisting the Earth revolves around the sun?

By the way, you are wrong about Davidson not showing a woman...Every single ROKC member who responded to my original post of 2 years ago agreed it looked like a woman...Even Stanton's grand daughter said it looked like a woman when I showed it to her...Davidson made a public statement on Burnham's site and said his enhancement shows the face of a woman...You don't seem to realize that Davidson posted his technical metadata that proved the woman's face was legitimately derived from the original Wiegman frame...Every single Prayer Man advocate who called for that metadata ran from it and could not answer it when Davidson posted it...That is the only place where Davidson can be criticized and so far no one has managed to do it...Davidson backed his evidence up...The Prayer Man people block and ban like silly children...If you do not possess the skill to detect the face in Davidson is not my problem...

Meanwhile I have discovered new conclusive proof that is being totally ignored...The fat arm in Stanton's family photo perfectly matches the fat arm on Prayer Man seen in Darnell...Also, Stancak is lying...Prayer Man is 7 1/2 inches shorter than Frazier in Darnell and not 10 inches as already-inaccurate Andrej suggests...When Andrej has a math problem he simply fudges and his moderator friends bail him out...There's open contempt for rigor going on on the Education Forum...When I showed that Andrej had misdrawn his height lines across the portal and not obeyed scale and perspective it was ignored...The height difference between Frazier and Prayer Man is 7 1/2 inches, not 10...

Prayer Man is 5 foot 5 inches tall and has both feet on the landing...Sarah's daughter said her mother was "between 5 foot 4 and 5 foot 6"...

Instead of apologizing for unfairly suspending me DPF banned me...When a person with no moderator avatar proves two persons with moderator avatars are violating their own sites rules it is funny how that person without the moderator avatar disappears...What was the DPF formed for again? To criticize governments and institutions that violated their own rules and denied truth and persecuted its tellers?       
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 06, 2018, 06:02:31 PM
Sarah's grand daughter Wanda just told me (in reference to Prayer Man in Darnell) -

"Yes, I noticed she was larger than persons standing next to her."

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on June 06, 2018, 11:48:23 PM
Sarah's grand daughter Wanda just told me (in reference to Prayer Man in Darnell) -

"Yes, I noticed she was larger than persons standing next to her."

Brian, I just wanted to reply to you again here.

Yes, I agree with you that the PM tale is infuriating because it muddles the JFK conspiracy narrative.  But there are plenty of others out there as well.  As a matter of fact, there is supposedly one coming out this year and it's by the scam artist David Lifton. I'm not afraid to call him that because that's what he is.  His so-called Best Evidence is nothing but a bunch of baloney and even worst, his new theory to further prove his body alteration theory is to...get this...state that Dr. Perry, who we all know cut into Kennedy's throat to try to save his life, did NOT cut into Kennedy's throat. In other words, the cut you see in the autopsy photos was done before the autopsy actually began.

And his "evidence" to prove this is:

A sound glitch on a Perry TV interview has been blown out of proportion; and
Bob Groden said Perry told him

And that's all.

I called him out over and over again and the last time I did so (you can read it here - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24927-who-changed-the-motorcade-route/?page=9&tab=comments#comment-379522) I got permanently banned over on EF.

So yeah, PM is ridiculous but what else is there to say, Brian?  It's pretty much petering out. But to think that Lifton's Thrumming Copter and Scalpels at the Ready theory may get the crazies lathered up with the *gasp ALL NEW FURTHER PROOF OF BODY ALTERATION* should be vigorously debated and called out. Perhaps if you redirected your obsession to this one, this would bring attention to his scam theory.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 07, 2018, 12:56:39 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Zc7Qtpb.png)

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=166&pos=105 (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=166&pos=105)

This or the next frame are the bestuns.
Need help finding her?
.
.
.
.
.
It's from Couch just after Robert Jackson shouted out and three woman turn to look in his direction, same body shape, same hairstyle and 10s from the steps where she will turn
towards in the following frames.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 07, 2018, 01:31:52 AM
That Darnell gif is so close to revealing the truth, the left leg is there, foot on the landing(and blocking the rad IMO) and it doesn't look bent enough to have his right foot on the step but we just cannot see it. Look at it for a long minute to reach the twilight zone. 8) :o :P
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 07, 2018, 05:30:00 PM
Brian, I just wanted to reply to you again here.

Yes, I agree with you that the PM tale is infuriating because it muddles the JFK conspiracy narrative.  But there are plenty of others out there as well.  As a matter of fact, there is supposedly one coming out this year and it's by the scam artist David Lifton. I'm not afraid to call him that because that's what he is.  His so-called Best Evidence is nothing but a bunch of baloney and even worst, his new theory to further prove his body alteration theory is to...get this...state that Dr. Perry, who we all know cut into Kennedy's throat to try to save his life, did NOT cut into Kennedy's throat. In other words, the cut you see in the autopsy photos was done before the autopsy actually began.

And his "evidence" to prove this is:

A sound glitch on a Perry TV interview has been blown out of proportion; and
Bob Groden said Perry told him

And that's all.

I called him out over and over again and the last time I did so (you can read it here - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24927-who-changed-the-motorcade-route/?page=9&tab=comments#comment-379522) I got permanently banned over on EF.

So yeah, PM is ridiculous but what else is there to say, Brian?  It's pretty much petering out. But to think that Lifton's Thrumming Copter and Scalpels at the Ready theory may get the crazies lathered up with the *gasp ALL NEW FURTHER PROOF OF BODY ALTERATION* should be vigorously debated and called out. Perhaps if you redirected your obsession to this one, this would bring attention to his scam theory.


The JFK research community has become so corrupted that it literally ignores the image of Sarah Stanton and how it relates to the Prayer Man evidence...Sorry Michael but you can't tacitly admit that my evidence is good and then denigrate it as "obsession"...If you are correct then the obsession is not from your side...The obsession is from the side of persons who are so dedicated to forcing their now-disproven evidence that they are willing to ignore breakthrough evidence and keep it from their websites in order to avoid admitting what it shows...The only obsession here is that of people who are flagrantly ignoring correct evidence in order not to admit they were wrong and therefore not the credible researchers they force others to accept with bullying...

Recently I have provided irrefutable proof that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...Stanton's daughter confirmed her mother's 5 foot 5 height...Prayer Man is 5 foot 5 when compared to Frazier...Photo analysis will show that the visibly thick forearm on Prayer Man that even Jim DiEugenio admitted he saw is case closed proof that Prayer Man is Stanton...One look at the family photo sent to me by Wanda (her grand daughter) shows beyond a doubt that the fat arm seen in that photo matches the thick arm seen on Prayer Man in Darnell...The Prayer Man people literally are not interested in correct evidence and are still trying to force their already-disproven crap right in the face of this final proof...

The moderation at the other two JFK research forums needs to be changed...The membership is filtered through a restricting bottle neck that damages the quality of the site by deliberately removing certain voices by means of false charges...This is a moderation problem...Exaggerated demands for politeness are being used to filter certain posters and opinions...It is clear to me that manners and posting style are stressed to a degree that matches the ineptitude of that moderation to oversee the material...The more the moderation is unable to understand intelligent evidence the more they stress manners...A lowest common denominator is being enforced at the expense of community integrity...Andre Stancak is allowed to mock those who say the average human head is 7 inches while the moderator ignores that Andrej himself was claiming Prayer Man's head was 7 inches just a few posts prior...The moderation has destroyed the credibility of that forum, but as the moderation said "if you don't like it find another website"...A credible community would do exactly that only the 95% of that community that fell for the Prayer Man theory find it beneficial to look the other way when those who present the correct evidence are railroaded by an incompetent bully moderator...Andrej completely ignored that latest proof in the form of Sarah's photo...The credibility of the research community has been brought down to the 12 year old level if they are ignoring evidence...

David Josephs told me he would respond to any correct evidence I posted on Prayer Man...He lied...When I posted this latest photo and evidence he ignored it...

Sorry Michael but as far as Lifton goes I am a strong supporter of his work...Because Jim DiEugenio has a flock of unskilled lackeys who support him no matter what (like Lauren Johnson) he is allowed to attack the person who probably brought the best evidence of all conspiracy researchers...Lifton's discoveries really crack the case...He proved there were two deliveries of caskets to Bethesda and therefore a switcho-changeo where a covert pre-autopsy was done...Because the community lacks competent detective skill it follows DiEugenio like a pack of slack-jawed dummies who simply accept anything he posts...They allow Jim to betray his own research ethic and the community by attacking Lifton...The reason Lifton is so important is because his discovery showed that Commander Pitzer had accidentally filmed the covert pre-autopsy with remote filming equipment and captured evidence of the original wounds...What was my reward for finally putting together the best case-cracking evidence of a conspiracy in my interpretation of Pitzer's discovery? I was banned by two idiot moderators who were just doing their job of tending to DiEugenio as his embarrassing servants knowing they would get away with that because of the fealty to Jim shown by the CT community...Two moderators who have no skill of their own in analyzing evidence and no record of doing so on the internet were allowed to take down the person who cracked the case in order to preserve their power and egos (and clique)...While the rest of the community stares at this evidence like dumb livestock and moderators boast that they are quite happy at the way the community is presently running...A narrow bottle neck gate-kept by two highly uncredible personalities in order to preserve their own power at the expense of the community...

It is not petering out...It has been turned in to a cult where intellectual criminals have hijacked the entire community and are outright censoring the best and brightest so they can dominate with their bully mob...Jim uses this mob to snuff out anyone who disagrees with him... The moderators pose as the victims but they are the aggressors...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 08, 2018, 04:11:58 AM
I still think that Prayer man was Fat Clemenza.  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on June 08, 2018, 09:22:45 PM

Sorry Michael but as far as Lifton goes I am a strong supporter of his work...


So let me get this straight, Brian. You have no problem at all obsessively talking about the crazy PM theory (which I happen to agree with you about). Yet, on the flip side, you *support* a fantastical and phony story about squirreling the body away and altering it?  In other words...

We're expected to believe that around crying people, passersby and news cameras that when the body left PMH that the Bad Guys squirreled away the body either at Love Field or some other undisclosed location, took the body out of the coffin and threw it into the cargo hold, then snuck it out the back door of 26000 and onto a helicopter, in full view of live TV cameras, family members, and others upon arriving at Andrews? I mean...really, Brian?  Do YOU believe in a fantastical story like this?

Knowing what I know, to believe that makes me definitely doubt one's credibility when they're rebutting one crazy theory but actually *supporting* a ridiculous one like that.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 08, 2018, 11:22:38 PM
Sarah Stanton's daughter in law just told me that Sarah told her that she ran in to Lee Harvey Oswald in a break room just prior to going out to the steps... The grand daughter Wanda said: "people were going out to watch and he (Oswald) was waiting at the stairs with a soda...she asked are you going to lunch and he answered just a soda...she said he was a very quiet man that he didnt talk to anyone...she left to go outside and he went ?upstairs?? thats it. hope this helps." Since it is very unlikely that 2nd floor office worker Sarah Stanton saw Oswald in the worker's 1st floor domino room away from the stairs in the Northeast corner of the Depository that means we have a second witness beside Carolyn Arnold who saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room with a Coke just prior to going out to watch the motorcade...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 09, 2018, 11:43:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 09, 2018, 11:52:26 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Zc7Qtpb.png)

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=166&pos=105 (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=166&pos=105)

This or the next frame are the bestuns.
Need help finding her?

Found her in a gif.
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2016_12/58585469cf867_couchloveladyshelley7l8kc9.gif(GIFImage518346pixels).gif.805da2f5805e3e2ebd8a78c992f6b7af.gif)
On the left at the last second, looks then turns toward the building, could be her.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on June 09, 2018, 11:52:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 09, 2018, 12:24:24 PM
Sarah Stanton's daughter just told me that Sarah told her that she ran in to Lee Harvey Oswald in a break room just prior to going out to the steps... The grand daughter Wanda said: "people were going out to watch and he (Oswald) was waiting at the stairs with a soda...she asked are you going to lunch and he answered just a soda...she said he was a very quiet man that he didnt talk to anyone...she left to go outside and he went ?upstairs?? thats it. hope this helps." Since it is very unlikely that 2nd floor office worker Sarah Stanton saw Oswald in the worker's 1st floor domino room away from the stairs in the Northeast corner of the Depository that means we have a second witness beside Carolyn Arnold who saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room with a Coke just prior to going out to watch the motorcade...

Not even secondhand but coming through you that's three people we have to trust, it doesn't work for me but did you at least get it "on tape"?

I'd ask for more photos not hearsay and also whether her son ever visited his mother for lunch perhaps even on that day because of the parade(PM looks more like him that her in that image she shared with you and he's in her position but why would you do that when you already know it's her?), is that her uncle then, is he still around, can you contact him, he would be the one to ask that to but subtle like.
Also I admire the way you reach out(and haven't I remained respectful toward you? That's no front) but I have to wonder if your questions might be influencing these people.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 09, 2018, 12:45:04 PM
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/yUmRpEE.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on June 09, 2018, 02:38:17 PM
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.

Barry, thanks for your reply.  Sometimes in my zeal to reveal what really happen that day, I *want* to believe anything to prove the conspiracy.  Then I have to calm down and take a step back.  Yes, I used to believe it was Oswald. But now I don't think it is and on EF I also said this:

"And no one seems to ask themselves the significant question because if they do, it will put doubt in their mind.  That question is:
If the plan was to murder Kennedy and set up Oswald to be the patsy, WHY would they allow their patsy to be out there during  these critical moments, risking the whole conspiracy? The planners knew that there was going to be cameras outside during the parade.  They most certainly wouldn't want the person they had set up to take the blame for the murder to be anywhere NEAR these cameras.
Of course, Andrej, Bart and John will totally ignore this because you DO have to take this into consideration, but instead they prefer to just ignore it and go on with their conspiracy belief that it's Oswald up there seconds after the shooting."

Doyle, of course, calls this "blather" but it's really not. So what does that tell you? It tells me that Doyle, like a rabid dog with teeth clenched deeply into someone's leg, cannot think of totally differing ideas about this. It's all Sarah Stanton, all the time.  So yes, regarding that, it's boring to keep reading about it when there are other more important things about this case to focus on.  The Dave Lifton xxxxxxxx is one of them.

And yes, I also said what you quoted me on about we'll never know until some pristine frame of that footage comes along and proves it's him or not. Believe me I want it to be him but as I explained above, if all that has been written about regarding the conspiracy is true (the patsy set up) I just cannot imagine them dropping the ball on that and not prepping him to stay inside until the deed was done.

Put another way, Doyle is just pissed because he got banned from EF.  That's all it boils down to.  I've been banned too but I've moved on, posting here and there on this forum.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on June 09, 2018, 02:56:30 PM
Hi Patrick.
The odd hat gal next to Maddie Resse has been named elsewhere as Ruth Dean.
(https://i.imgur.com/yUmRpEE.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 09, 2018, 06:13:26 PM
Doyle, of course, calls this "blather" but it's really not. So what does that tell you? It tells me that Doyle, like a rabid dog with teeth clenched deeply into someone's leg, cannot think of totally differing ideas about this. It's all Sarah Stanton, all the time.  So yes, regarding that, it's boring to keep reading about it when there are other more important things about this case to focus on.  The Dave Lifton bullshit is one of them.

And yes, I also said what you quoted me on about we'll never know until some pristine frame of that footage comes along and proves it's him or not. Believe me I want it to be him but as I explained above, if all that has been written about regarding the conspiracy is true (the patsy set up) I just cannot imagine them dropping the ball on that and not prepping him to stay inside until the deed was done.

Put another way, Doyle is just xxxxxx because he got banned from EF.  That's all it boils down to.  I've been banned too but I've moved on, posting here and there on this forum.


As I already explained, you yourself backed my discovery of the 3 inch too long leg on Stancak's Prayer Man...That discovery is better proof than your entry that the plotters would not have allowed Oswald to wander - though I absolutely agree that to any honest person with common sense who understands the complex multi-month set-up of Oswald that the idea that he would be allowed to blow the whole set up by being seen on the front steps landing is silly and only shows the value of the people who are making it as far as credibility...These people got drawn in to the Prayer Man delusion and allowed themselves to be brainwashed by it and now they are practicing childish silly spite in revenge which only shows their juvenile nature and lack of research credibility...It shows what they are truly here for and it isn't honest objective analysis...It is quite foolish to attack me because it only translates in to letting Stancak off the hook...However, in reading your personal attack above Michael, it seems to me you are saying you agree Prayer Man is Stanton because of my evidence...Thank you for that...It is more than the Prayer Man mob has done in their persecution...Credible researchers don't gang-up and persecute because someone proved them wrong...

To say we need better footage is just to give the whole game away and side with the Prayer Man people foolishly...It shows a lack of skill...The fat forearm and waist on Prayer Man when compared to Stanton forensically match and therefore prove Prayer Man is Stanton...Michael has nerve because he's talking to the internet's best authority on the Prayer Man issue...He, like every other denier of this correct evidence, ignores the fact that I have proven the timing of Gloria Calvery running to the steps proves that Frazier is talking to Sarah at the moment of the Darnell image...

Yes, I'm xxxxxx about being banned from Deep Politics and the Education Forum...I'm xxxxxx because they were allowed to break their own rules and ignore correct evidence...On the EF you have one moderator saying they are sensitive about quality of content but then missing egregious scientific errors by Stancak...The second moderator there said accuracy of evidence doesn't matter the only thing that matters is how people treat each other...Apparently they don't consider ganging-up on an innocent member and violating their own rules as mistreating??? It is pretty clear to people not under the spell of the Murphy gang that the moderation at those sites banned me in order to gain favor with their favored members...If you are smart you'll realize Larsen stopped posting after I proved his location of Calvery proved Prayer Man was Stanton...It is not me who is obsessed...All I am guilty of is posting the correct evidence against some very dirty and dishonest people who are willing to destroy the credibility of the entire community in order to preserve their egos...Jim DiEugenio is the ring leader of that and has some serious justice headed his way...I got banned because I disproved a 95% majority on Prayer Man...People who ban because you refute them are losers...Lauren Johnson is a liar...He said I wasn't being banned because of my Prayer Man "beliefs"...He's a liar...Any look at the record at Deep Politics will show that every time I cited the site rules he was violating as moderator he deleted it and locked the thread...The private and cowardly moderator board said I was only citing those rules in order to attack Lauren (in other words they are allowed to violate the rules and the rules don't apply to them)...The same site rules don't allow them to do that...Lauren is an unintelligent thug and simple, honorless primitive who Magda was dumb enough to allow to be moderator...But of course Magda sided with the Murphy theorists and never came back to account for it even though her rules require her to and specifically say ALL members, including administration, must heel to those rules...When you cite that the xxxxxx moderator L Johnson deletes the citation and post...Only losers stoop to that level in order to avoid admitting the truth...The internet has allowed egos to syndicate at the expense of rigor and credible research...

Michael doesn't offer much so he finds it easier to walk away from...I've offered issue-ending evidence that is being ignored and held in contempt by liars who have hijacked the community...A little bit of a different deal...

 
   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 09, 2018, 06:17:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 09, 2018, 06:30:40 PM
Thanks Larry:

There's a serious credibility problem with the JFK research community...Yesterday I posted never before seen evidence of a second witness to Oswald being by the 2nd floor lunch room and it was literally ignored just like the never before seen photo of Stanton...You now have a vindictive community that ignores evidence that would be trumpeted if anyone else posted it because of petty personal, egotistical spite...Even worse because you disproved them on Murphy and they are doing childish revenge and making it personal...John Kennedy would be ashamed that these (explicative) would be representing him...The head dummy is Jim DiEugenio who operates by using idiots to destroy anyone who questions his bogus claims...

In the interim I realized that Stanton must have seen Oswald with the soda by the 2nd floor lunch room vestibule...Why?...Because she asked Oswald if he was going to eat lunch...It makes sense to me that 2nd floor office worker Stanton saw Oswald by the vestibule "by the stairs" as she put it...She asked Oswald if he was going to eat lunch because he was standing on the 2nd floor staircase landing by the lunch room door...Otherwise why would she be spurred to ask if Oswald was going to eat lunch simply because she saw Oswald with a Coke?

This is corroboration of Carolyn Arnold against whom the quack researcher Bart Kamp took the side of the Warren Commission and FBI and backed up their alteration of her statement...And the rest of the community stood back and let him...I was banned from Deep Politics when I confronted Lauren that he had committed a serious violation of his own site rules by allowing Jim DiEugenio to back this egregious endorsement of FBI deceit...Lauren never answered that...I was then banned with Lauren saying it wasn't because of this but was for "repeated behavior"... Ah huh...

Debra Conway gave my discovery a thumbs up...I called Robert Groden and he told me "You've really got something there"...Lauren Johnson: "It's your own fault"...Apparently there is no point at which DiEugenio gets embarrassed...His ego is so big that it has created a dark shadow on the truth across the entire community...

   

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 09, 2018, 09:11:20 PM
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
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 09, 2018, 09:49:53 PM
It is amazing that what are otherwise the best known CTers are siding with what should be obvious as an uncredible source...The ROKC group should be obvious for what it is, yet you have some of the best names in research siding with them and more importantly ignoring my good evidence...These people are so desperate to make it personal in order to avoid admitting they were wrong that they ignore a breakthrough new photo of Stanton...

But what is really bizarre is showing serious new evidence on a historical level of Stanton bearing witness to Oswald being on the landing by the 2nd floor lunch room with a soda and it gets ignored...That's a crime against research that the offenders should be made to answer for...It just shows the ridiculous level the Prayer Man/DiEugenio cult has led the community downward into and what they are willing to stoop to...

I called Robert Groden yesterday and he told me "You really got something there"...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 09, 2018, 10:58:10 PM
This is over guys...In this video Buell Frazier clearly describes "Standing in the shadows up on the 'landing' " (Buell calls it a space) after Calvery ran up shouting...He says that he and Sarah were standing in the shadows talking about what Calvery had said...Prayer Man is in the shadows and Frazier is seen facing and talking to "him"...

"Sarah, the lady I was standing by up on the top step back in the shadows"...

If you are sharp you will see Frazier describe Baker coming up the steps before "people begun to come back in"...

Clever researchers will detect that Frazier details him and Sarah being back in the shadows on the top step...Since Frazier is clearly speaking about the portal landing that means Prayer Man is up on the landing and is therefore 5 foot 5 inches tall - Sarah Stanton's exact height as told to me by her daughter in law...

Game over...End of story...

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on June 10, 2018, 10:25:24 AM
This is over guys...In this video Buell Frazier clearly describes "Standing in the shadows up on the 'landing' " (Buell calls it a space) after Calvery ran up shouting...He says that he and Sarah were standing in the shadows talking about what Calvery had said...Prayer Man is in the shadows and Frazier is seen facing and talking to "him"...

"Sarah, the lady I was standing by up on the top step back in the shadows"...

If you are sharp you will see Frazier describe Baker coming up the steps before "people begun to come back in"...

Clever researchers will detect that Frazier details him and Sarah being back in the shadows on the top step...Since Frazier is clearly speaking about the portal landing that means Prayer Man is up on the landing and is therefore 5 foot 5 inches tall - Sarah Stanton's exact height as told to me by her daughter in law...

Game over...End of story...


Great, Brian.  But no "game" has been won.  So a crazy theory has been disproven (hopefully).  Now what?  Move on to other more important issues of the JFK story. Two suggestions for you are the ridiculous Hardly Lee theory and the scam artist Lifton's thrumming copter theory.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 10, 2018, 05:14:53 PM
 

   Edit:   Sanders said 11:25...I would double check that because she might have said 12:25 and FBI changed it...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 10, 2018, 07:41:04 PM
I've seen "12:20" posted on Gayle Nix's website as a reference to the time Sanders went outside to watch the motorcade...Important because Stanton was probably with this group when they left and that is when she saw Oswald with a soda "by the stairs" (on the 2nd floor stairway landing)...

Nix incorrectly located Stanton on the steps by the way as being right below Otis Williams...

If Duncan hadn't provided us this space for posting the correct evidence the Murphy mob and their corrupted moderators would have succeeded in censoring it from the internet...   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on June 10, 2018, 09:06:11 PM
As long as the "LeeHarveyOswald is PrayerManTheory" is promoted as fact ::), anyone wishing to dispute the identification of "PrayerPersonImage" should continue to do so. Walk:

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.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 11, 2018, 04:07:11 PM
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.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 11, 2018, 09:58:44 PM
Hargrove posted my evidence over on the Education Forum...Apparently the Education Forum moderation allows Kamp to run the forum like it is his own website and tell people what they can post and not post...It is a pretty serious violation of research ethics to deny or ignore serious breakthrough evidence in the assassination...Especially if you are doing so in order to protect what you know to be bad claims or bad evidence that has already been disproven...The Education Forum is not telling the truth when it says it is "sensitive about quality of content"...DiEugenio and Kamp are hijacking forums, misleading the community, and deliberately ignoring serious new evidence in order to preserve their egos and patronage to Murphy...They are research outlaws...

The moderation overseeing this farce extends coddling platitudes to Stancak and cuddles him, telling him his work is so hard and underappreciated...Stancak should take his time and we'll wait...After accepting this huge bias in order to not have to too quickly admit he refuted himself with his 3 inch too long leg that isn't scientifically curable, Kamp and Stancak turn around and demand hoop and hurdle verification with full immediate evidence and documentation...Stancak, of course, turns to Lovelady for his back-up...Lovelady - the same guy who openly lied for the Commission in order to cover-up the real timing of Victoria Adams and god knows what else...Because Stancak exists on a very cowardly Education Forum playing field, where the Prayer Man people are guarded by brute censorship and removal for correctly questioning the Prayer Man claims, he practices a very particular type of selective amnesia where he forgets that Carolyn Arnold placed Oswald by sight in the 2nd Floor lunch room at 12:25...Gayle Nix lists Pauline Sanders as exiting the Depository to see the motorcade at 12:20...If Stanton was part of that group that would place her witnessing close to the exact same time we already know Carolyn Arnold placed Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room (where sodas were sold)...The Prayer Man group is a petty, cowardly lot...They are not men...They only exist in places where the truth tellers are removed or their ability to comment is prevented...Because of this oppressive censorship the family photo of Stanton, a major piece of new evidence, wasn't even posted on the Education Forum...That photo is a seriously important piece of new evidence...Because of the bully domination of the Prayer Man gang it wasn't even posted on the EF...In fact Kamp can't even bring himself to post it on his own Prayer Man site...That is how badly these people keep the truth from themselves...Mr DiEugenio: At what point do you become embarrassed?

Anyone who watches the video of Frazier Hargrove posted can see he clearly emphasizes that he and Sarah were deep in to the shadows on the landing...In fact they were the two persons on the landing who were deepest in to the shadows...Look at Darnell and you'll see Frazier and Prayer Man are the two persons who are deepest into the shadows...Kamp would like you to think that Sarah's light-colored hair was the only issue...In fact he would like to become site dictator and order people what they can talk about and post and what they can't...The Education Forum moderation doesn't seem to mind either...However Kamp isn't honestly addressing the other evidence...Since Frazier makes clear that he and Sarah were back in to the shadows that means they were back on the landing in order to be that far back...What Stancak is ignoring here is that places Prayer Man and Frazier up on the landing with both feet...As even Stancak himself admitted, if Prayer Man were standing on the landing he would be too short to be Oswald...Not only does Frazier confirm that Prayer Man is standing on the landing, but a height comparison between Frazier and Prayer Man makes Prayer Man 5 foot 5 inches tall...Stanton's grand daughter called her mother on the phone...In that conversation Sarah's daughter in law confirmed that Sarah was 5 foot 5...Stancak, of course, while demanding strict documentation and rigor doesn't demand it of himself when shown proof that Prayer Man's height matches that of Sarah Stanton perfectly...Stancak and Kamp ignore that the family photo of Stanton, they refuse to post, shows a chubby forearm that perfectly matches Prayer Man's...Even DiEugenio noticed this...The wide hips on both individuals also match perfectly...Both of those strict evidence-demanders grant themselves the right to ignore the timing of Calvery being at the base of the steps and how it proves that Frazier is talking to Sarah, as he more than details in the video...

No, the reason Kamp and Stancak refuse to post the family photo of Sarah is because it becomes all too clear that the large-sized woman seen in that photo would be hard to hide anywhere else on the landing...The reason they can't find Sarah anywhere else is because they refuse to admit the obvious - and what all the other evidence is screaming...That Stanton is the large-bodied and wide-hipped Prayer Man right where Frazier clearly puts her in his more than detailed 2013 interview... 

Another thing I truly don't like about the Prayer Man defenders is Stancak hints in his response that you can either trust Stanton's daughter in law or the FBI with the hint that the FBI is more reliable...Just what FBI did to Carolyn Arnold's statement alone should say enough...DiEugenio and Lauren Johnson have no problem with Kamp backing FBI over Carolyn Arnold...

   Who, on the Education Forum, is going to point-out to Stancak that since he establishes a 5 foot height for "Tiny Woman" that Stanton must be somewhere else...Sarah is too large to hide up there...Are we going to wait another year for Stancak to answer this while demanding fully documented and confirmed evidence from us? Stancak literally had to fabricate a non-existent Stanton exactly because he was aware of this problem...How credible is the Education Forum that they let him get away with that?

   It is kind of silly for Education Forum members to demand answers from somebody who they censored from the board...Recognizing good information and asking questions about it is equal to recognizing board qualification...What is the problem at that point and from whom does it originate? 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on June 12, 2018, 02:35:18 AM

No, the reason Kamp and Stancak refuse to post the family photo of Sarah is because it becomes all too clear that the large-sized woman seen in that photo would be hard to hide anywhere else on the landing...The reason they can't find Sarah anywhere else is because they refuse to admit the obvious - and what all the other evidence is screaming...That Stanton is the large-bodied and wide-hipped Prayer Man right where Frazier clearly puts her in his more than detailed 2013 interview... 


Sorry Brian but that is NOT a large sized woman up there. You're wrong there like you were wrong when you said Davidson's expert blow-up of the blurry framed showed it was a woman.

That photo of the very fat woman with huge arms simply does not fit the body shape of the person in the film frame.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 12, 2018, 01:06:21 PM
Brian,
As surely evident, again without reliable evidence supporting the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, the presented evidence indicating PrayerPersonImage to be a female, then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository building, continues to be "discounted", and disputed.

Sadly, now even SarahDeanStanton has been labeled as a "liar", simply because she indicated herself to have seen LHO on the second floor, just before her going down to the first floor, and onto the entrance landing.


Larry, why did you underline all of the above post?
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 12, 2018, 04:36:59 PM
It might help to mention to Stancak that it might not be the witnesses who were lying but the FBI who omitted or altered their statements...Since they were already caught doing it with Carolyn Arnold it is the more likely explanation...It stands to reason that if FBI altered Stanton saying she saw Oswald with a soda it was because he was near to the time and place that Carolyn Arnold saw him in the 2nd floor lunch room...

The Prayer Man people use corrupted, incompetent moderators, who are just backing their friends like school yard children, to flagrantly censor and ban you for posting the correct evidence and then ask you to post screen shots of your witnessing etc...These people are not credible and act in a way that shows an arrogant disconnection from reality...The two crooked gate-keepers who banned me aren't fit to touch the hem of my research garment and don't account for the good evidence they deny their members or the rotten methods they have now forced on the captive audience community that doesn't mind this destruction of community credibility as long as they are bailed-out from answering for their now debunked Prayer Man claims...These are cowards who argue from the safe protection of woefully unjust censorship and now consider it normal while demanding things from their victims that their own cowardly actions prevent those victims from delivering...Their booby moderation has now made the community a body of knaves, quacks, hacks, and fools that have sunk the JFK research ship by their own enforced lack of credibility...These people are not embarrassed by their banning those who disprove them and only being able to function from inside a rottenly corrupt system where all correct opponents are removed by incompetent bully moderators who lie about the reasons and violate their own site rules with impunity...It doesn't phase them at all that the people who stood up to their rotten claims, Gilbride, Walton, Graves, & myself were all banned by a crook who hunts the truth from the cowardly shadows...Look at the weasels who know this is wrong yet still accept the bully domination of that source as long as they are allowed to post...Pathetic...And provably resulting in the opposite of what those sites claim to do...

If you want to know what the truth is look at what the Prayer Man people omit when they comment on your postings...

  I posted a comment on Gayle Nix's website telling her Prayer Man was Stanton and she had gotten it wrong and she removed the comment...The Prayer Man group is a cult that gives itself the right to avoid discussing correct evidence and gives itself the right of flagrant censorship...
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 12, 2018, 08:43:12 PM
Here we go again with James Gordon allowing the Prayer Man bullies to come in and take over the narrative while the opposition is banned from responding...

No one mentions to Andrej that Frazier was very specific in his detailing that he and Sarah were deep in to the shadows on the landing...If they were deep in to the shadows then they were on the landing and therefore had both feet on the landing...Once you show Prayer Man had both feet on the landing then you can say with certainty that "he" is 5 foot 5 in height when compared to Frazier and therefore too short to be Oswald...Gordon has allowed Andrej and Kamp to be the only voices on the issue...Therefore they are being shielded from answering these correct points... What Andrej does is seize the narrative by asking numerous questions...By doing so he avoids answering evidence like I am citing here...Andrej is assisted by Gordon in avoiding answering that Stanton's daughter told me Sarah was 5 foot 5...

Stancak listed "Tiny Woman" (Pauline Sanders) as being 5 foot tall...Stancak knew he had a problem because that excluded Tiny Woman from being the 5 foot 5 Stanton...Which meant he now had to find Stanton out on the landing and identify her...Only he couldn't do it...The recent family photo of Stanton sent to me by her grand daughter shows Stanton to be quite wide in body size...She would obviously be hard to conceal on the landing due to her size...Stancak couldn't locate Stanton so what he did was translate a glimpse of Pauline Sanders' face seen behind Lovelady in Altgens in to an imaginary Sarah Stanton he then inserted in to Darnell...This new imaginary Stanton was created out of thin air by Stancak because he knew the evidence needed him to come up with a non-Prayer Man Stanton...The community let him get away with this rogue fabrication...Stancak ignored that Prayer Man was the exact 5 foot 5 listed as Stanton's height...He also ignored the wide hips seen on Prayer Man that matched Stanton's...

Another thing Kamp and Stancak avoid with their aggressive so-called demands for evidence is that Shelley & Lovelady spoke to Calvery at the base of the steps before taking off up the Elm St extension...Since the Couch/Darnell clip shows Shelley & Lovelady well on their way up the extension, that means Calvery has already conveyed her information that the president had been shot to the occupants of the steps...Which makes you realize the timing is then established for Frazier and Sarah hearing Calvery's saying that...It then becomes undeniable that the Couch/Darnell sequence is at a time period where Frazier has to already be in to the process of communicating Calvary's information to Sarah...One look at the clip shows Frazier and Prayer Man focused on each other and directly looking at each other...This forces the conclusion that Frazier is speaking to "Sarah" at this moment, as he makes clear in the video...

I have never seen any Prayer Man supporter answer this and Gordon seems intent at not asking them...This is really a matter of credible moderation at this point...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 12, 2018, 09:33:10 PM
A couple of things of note, at least to me, is that "being in shadow" indicates being on the landing, and center to west. And, as I recall, Ms SarahStanton indicated that she was unable to see the limousine carrying President JohnKennedySr and Mrs JacquelineKennedy, as well as Governor JohnConnallyJr and Mrs IdanellConnally, along with the SecretServiceDriver and Co-Driver, as the shooting occurred. And again, at least to me, an indication that MsStanton was west of center on the landing, and not on the east of center side.

IIRC, someone aka Bary Kamp, posted elsewhere that MsStanton was east of center.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 12, 2018, 09:45:21 PM
More nails in the coffin...I just posted it around...

Guess Jim D isn't going to mention that to Kamp...
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 13, 2018, 06:18:39 PM
Stancak finally managed to post a photo of Sarah Stanton on the Education Forum...That means, because of the community bias against the correct evidence in the Prayer Man issue, it takes the pseudo-researchers who still back Oswald as Prayer Man a week to finally recognize and post important images...

Stancak has offered a smorgasbord of pseudo-research for the wacking in his latest offerings...

The best shortest way to put it is Stancak has posted my family photo of Stanton, that it took him a week to recognize, but has not transferred the arguments that were attached to it over the Education Forum...As I have been repeatedly saying, if you want to know the truth look at what the Prayer Man people omit when they take your evidence over to their boards...

Stancak has taken the photo of Stanton to the Education Forum but he hasn't taken the accompanying evidence of comparing Stanton in that photo to Prayer Man in Darnell...Stancak deliberately omits the evidence and arguments I showed where Prayer Man's height is the exact same height as the 5 foot 5 told to me by Stanton's relatives...Stancak omits a comparison of Prayer Man's thick forearm to that of Stanton...He also omits any direct comparison of Prayer Man's wide hips to those seen on Stanton in the family photo...They are clearly a match...These omissions are a rank violation of photo analysis science...Finally Stancak gives no mention to Frazier clearly detailing that he was talking to Sarah when Calvery ran up...Stancak completely ignores that Shelley & Lovelady spoke to Calvery before going up the Elm St extension...Couch/Darnell shows Shelley & Lovelady well on their way up the extension, which means Frazier has heard Calvery's shouting the president has been shot and is obviously well in to the timing of asking Sarah what Calvery had said...This is firm, clever analysis that nails the goings on in the portal with good detective exactitude...How does Stancak deal with it? He totally ignores it with the knowledge that the Prayer Man muggers will help him do so with no punishment...Just like he ignored drawing a bent leg over what is clearly the radiator - which refutes his foot on the step claim, but the generous Education Forum members will help Andrej out of that by not mentioning this simple proof that shoots down his bogus foot on the step claim...The moderator will simply remove anyone who points out this correct evidence and Andrej will take full advantage of it while the moderator falsely defames the removed from the cowardly safety of his moderator den...On the Education Forum there is unlimited room for Stancak's illiterate foolishness..Correct evidence and its posters are quickly removed...

Stancak commits several grievous errors of science in his latest offerings...First he says Stanton's son Larry is 6 foot tall...Stancak violates his own 7 1/2 inch head length science when he does so...Larry can be no more than 5 foot 10 or so when compared to the 5 foot 5 Stanton right next to him...Once again, Stancak simply fudges when he needs countering evidence to go away...

Stancak commits grave errors of science with no problem from the other members on the Education Forum...After falsely calling the obviously short Stanton "tall" he then tries to directly transpose the family photo on to the Darnell Prayer Man image for a direct overlay comparison...Phonies like David Josephs will nickle and dime you on technicalities forever when you post correct images...Stancak, on the other hand, is allowed to post rogue violations of photo science with no problem what so ever form those same scurrilous characters...As anyone with a wit of common sense or knowledge of photo science would tell you, you cannot transpose the garden photo on top of Darnell like Stancak attempts...It simply doesn't work that way because the two images possess different perspectives and scaling...Even worse, if Stancak had done justice to photographic accuracy the image actually would have matched Prayer Man's height when transposed properly...

Stancak is desperate to make Prayer Man Oswald with one foot on the step so his childish Rube Goldberg attempts always start from that premise and mangle the evidence in order to make it fit...What Stancak is doing is diverting your attention to yet another one of his pseudo-analysis run-arounds in order to keep from mentioning that a direct comparison of Prayer Man's height in Darnell shows that Prayer Man is 5 foot 5 when compared to Frazier...Stancak slaps an invalid overlay of the garden photo over Darnell in order to avoid this...But if you simply look at Darnell, Prayer Man matches Sarah Stanton's confirmed 5 foot 5 height just like I have been saying for years...

Also, I'd like people to notice Stancak dropped his imaginary Stanton from his cartoon graphic...He knows there is no Sarah Stanton behind Frazier in the portal...He made that up because he knew he couldn't locate Stanton if he refused to admit Stanton was Prayer Man...The Education Forum members allowed Stancak to fabricate an imaginary Stanton exactly because he realized the evidence forced him to if he wasn't going to admit Prayer Man was Stanton...

I was removed from the Education Forum because the bullies who control it knew I would make quick work of Stancak with the legitimate evidence if allowed to post...It is a cowardly website...
     
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 13, 2018, 07:23:17 PM
That offering by AS appears to me to be, at best, ridiculous, and is not relative size/position correct. I fail to see any reasoning for that effort, unless just plain lacking in applicable purposeful accuracy ability is involved. But, be not surprised if it ends up being "edited".

Maybe, hopefully, MW, and/or CD, will "quote" the post, for a record.

And, sometimes posted nearby, are different "versions" of the portal image. Sometimes an "imaginary female image" on the east side of the landing/upper step, and other times not there as filmed.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 14, 2018, 05:53:14 PM
Apparently it is useless to post the errors Stancak is making because your information is ignored and has no effect...The JFK research community is in the gutter and is run by incompetents who dumb-down the content of their websites to suit the ability of their overseers in order to make it easier for themselves at the expense of credible content...The moderators on the two other forums are not qualified to oversee the level of technical material on their sites and react defensively to the best and brightest in order to prevent their lack of ability from being exposed...

I have already posted that Andrej Stancak is a rogue incompetent who regularly offers seriously flawed material that is not criticized on the Education Forum simply because the members are dealing with the Prayer Man topic on an internecine political basis and are therefore turning a blind eye to some really rotten science being offered by Stancak...

When you post that Andrej is entering images from one photo perspective and scale and overlapping them with photo images of a completely different perspective and scale it gets ignored and Andrej continues to offer his rogue violations of basic photo science unchallenged...The Education Forum moderators don't know what they are looking at so they don't notice the serious errors Andrej offers...Andrej is doing this deliberately because he is trying to pass off Rube Goldberg skewed pseudo-science in order to force his Oswald as Prayer Man claim...He knows the crooked members of the community will let him...

It is important to note that I have called Stancak out for offering height lines in his images that do not conform to proper photogrammetric science...He ignores it and offers the same Rube Goldberg clumsy science without even noticing the serious mistake he is making...This is the same guy who cheated and stretched his Prayer Man leg an extra 3 inches hoping no one would notice...And none of the silent gangsters on the Education Forum did...If I hadn't pointed-out Stancak's serious error the members of the Education Forum would have given Stancak yet another pass for his rotten mickey mouse garbage science and praised him for it...Education Forum moderation-approved Stancak is right back at it again without skipping a beat with his latest offering...

If you look at Stancak's height lines his computer graphic technology is drawing his height lines according to the 2 dimensional scale of the square perspective of the frame of his image...Look at the rectangular frame that Stancak's images are contained within and imagine it as a flat 2 dimensional surface...Stancak's height lines are being placed by his software on a flat 2 dimensional plane that conforms to the frame of the image...His height lines therefore will always conform to the 90 degree perpendicular corners of that framing...Look closely at Stancak's height lines and you will see they are always perfectly parallel to the top framing line...However then go to the actual contents of the image and realize the subject matter conforms to a 3 dimensional perspective plane that tilts on two axis's...The perspective plane of the subjects in the image conforms to the front wall of the Depository and the building...It expands as you go from left to right and therefore does not conform to Stancak's 2 dimensional scaling...This would be simply shown if Stancak placed one of his 2 dimensional height lines at the base of the upper aluminum window frame...He would see that the frame would go in a different direction than his height lines and leave a gap between the two...The aluminum frame is the correct 3D perspective for objects in the image...Stancak's height lines are not and are giving erroneous results...I have already posted this but Stancak is apparently blind to it...The booby Education Forum membership deliberately ignores it and therefore dismisses themselves from credibility...

No one on the Education Forum tells Stancak that he is offering ridiculous violations of his own science...Because Stancak is so desperate to force everything in to his Oswald measurements he is now claiming Frazier's head was 10 inches...This is the bizarro world the Education Forum moderation has created by selective censorship...Because the credible members have been removed in order to support the moderation's bias toward the Prayer Man theory no one is on the Education Forum to tell Stancak he is stupidly ignoring that we could measure Frazier's head today because he is still alive...Frazier's head would obviously be the 7 1/2 to 8 inches the human head is and therefore automatically show what clumsy Rube Goldberg garbage Stancak's offerings are...He's cheating and he's doing so in public because he is going to force Prayer Man to be Oswald even if he has to violate every law of common sense and science to do so - not to mention his own previous claims...Meanwhile if we go back to reality and properly drawn height lines we will see that Prayer Man comes up to Frazier's chin and if we apply that 7 1/2 to 8 inch head size it once again confirms that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton's 5 foot 5 inches in height... And this is without mentioning the thick forearm and hips Stancak is openly ignoring, or the timing of Calvery's run to the steps... 

Not a peep on the Education Forum while Stancak gets away with photo analysis murder and the moderator says he is very happy with the current state of affairs on the forum...     
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 14, 2018, 08:14:35 PM
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.


As I've already explained, I don't rely on written statements based off of someone's memory to prove a case and neither do modern truthseekers. You can make a case sure just like the PM crowd does but you prove nothing. Circumstancial is being generous, true evidence comes from sources other than written statements.

There is no evidence it's LHO, it just looks like him.
There is no evidence it's a woman but you cannot rule it out.

Now this Stanton thing is actually a very good example, yes she said she was on the landing but I've found her double, twenty five seconds after the shooting "on the island" with PM still in his spot. Could be her? Well it would be pretty silly asking you and now Brian as he's just made clear.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 14, 2018, 08:25:16 PM
Brian,
As surely evident, again without reliable evidence supporting the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, the presented evidence indicating PrayerPersonImage to be a female, then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository building, continues to be "discounted", and disputed.

Sadly, now even SarahDeanStanton has been labeled as a "liar", simply because she indicated herself to have seen LHO on the second floor, just before her going down to the first floor, and onto the entrance landing.


Edited:For RayMitcham.

Again there is only circumstancial(unreliable) evidence for PM being a female and/or LHO.
Now in which statement did she say she saw Oswald and what makes you trust it?

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 14, 2018, 08:40:48 PM
Bart Kamp has made a new entry on his Prayer Man website and the Education Forum pointing-out a woman down on the east steps as being Stanton and is claiming victory from this...

No one on the Education Forum points-out to Kamp that the video Hargrove linked shows Frazier emphasizing that Stanton was on the top step space (landing) and was deep into the shadows...

Not only is Kamp's Stanton too far behind and below Frazier to be Stanton, but she is way out into the sun and can't possibly be deep in the shadows...Kamp's Stanton is also several steps down and isn't on the landing as Frazier clearly explained...

Stanton also said she could not see the limousine during the shots...The person Kamp points-out has a clear view of the limousine from that spot...

When is the research community going to admit to itself it has allowed a highly uncredible person into unquestioned leadership of its ranks?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 14, 2018, 08:42:24 PM
I seem to recall, as seen elsewhere, that someone aka AS, has a computerized TSBD Entrance/Landing area, with mannequins "inserted" in positions, apparently according to his analysis for "placement"(?).

And then, as evidence, he "refers to his own analysis" as proof of where entrance area occupants were standing?

The reason it's good is because we are too limited by the photographic evidence to understand clearly who stood where, in which position and/or step. I like it, it's an interesting project and seems useful.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 14, 2018, 10:02:02 PM
Bart Kamp has made a new entry on his Prayer Man website and the Education Forum pointing-out a woman down on the east steps as being Stanton and is claiming victory from this...

(https://media.giphy.com/media/R1l2WyEZvO8Wk/giphy.gif)

Look at the size of his Pareidolia induced Sanders head in his posted image, It's tiny in perspective comparison to every other real person's head in that image, and his Stanton ID looks like a begging dog standing on its hind legs...sheeeeeesh, or should that be Woof! Woof! (http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/happy/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQuzVaw6lpfXlIWoI5m1SNvF9rxogl0iWFc0hDcGqWsh6nzp03o)


(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/happy/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif)


(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/stantondog.gif)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on June 14, 2018, 10:52:56 PM
As I said before, the EF is going downhill and fast.  And I said that *before* I got banned there, so my saying that is not hindsight. It's one vast echo chamber of crazy theories and "atta boys."

In actuality, it may just be reverting back to its original mission of being a place where paid authors can shill their books to mere mortals like me. Of course, there are some good authors there like Jim DiEugenio, who focuses mainly on Kennedy's foreign policy and civil rights histories, among other things.

But scam artists like Lifton are also there. I'm pretty sure Lifton is the scammer who got me banned there when I xxxx him off about his upcoming scam theory.

Vince the Secret Service "Expert" is another one that comes to mind. How much of an "expert" do you have to be about the Secret Service? What a xxxxing joke.

All of the folks who provided good honest rebuttals to the crazies over there have either been banned or have left.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 15, 2018, 12:13:21 AM
DiEugenio asked Kamp where he thought Stanton was?

Kamp responded with this obviously absurd claim...

You can see what the obvious follow-through questions are on Kamp's absurd location for Stanton in my post...

We'll see how DiEugenio responds...

If he follows his usual pattern he won't respond and Kamp's asinine location for Stanton will go un-commented on...

The moderation will also have no complaint about this absurd mis-use of the board and willful ignoring of my better evidence...

The video of Frazier I had Hargrove post on the Education Forum makes clear that Frazier insisted Stanton was up on the landing and in the shadows...Kamp contemptuously ignores this and the board moderation keeps the better evidence from being posted while claiming it is "sensitive to quality of content"...

Kamp contemptuously ignores that his correct insistence that Shelley & Lovelady are walking up the Elm St extension forces him to admit that Frazier is talking to Stanton at the exact moment seen in Darnell, since testimony says Calvery spoke Shelley & Lovelady before they left the steps...Kamp needs to ignore this because he knows it disproves what is he showing...

If DiEugenio were competent and honest he would ask Kamp:  "How do you relate Frazier's description of Calvery and her having communicated Kennedy's being shot to your location of Stanton vs Frazier's description?"

This is a necessary follow-through from the evidence I showed...Do you think Jim will ask it?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 15, 2018, 01:43:26 AM
The reason it's good is because we are too limited by the photographic evidence to understand clearly who stood where, in which position and/or step. I like it, it's an interesting project and seems useful.

Then how does he know where to place his mannequins? How does he identify the images represented by his mannequins?

The PrayerPersonImage has never appeared to me to resemble LeeHarveyOswald. And, additional evidence is needed to correctly identify said image.

Recently, additional evidence has been presented that strongly indicates PrayerPersonImage to be SarahStanton, but no evidence indicates PPI to be LHO.

Believe what you wish, but "looks like", along with claims of eyewitnesses being "liars" is not evidence.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 15, 2018, 02:10:58 AM
Again there is only circumstancial(unreliable) evidence for PM being a female and/or LHO.
Now in which statement did she say she saw Oswald and what makes you trust it?

If you wish to continue your refusal to acknowledge prepared and provable information relative to the PrayerPersonImage correct identification, that is your choice. But, you need to answer with evidence to disprove what has been presented, along with actual reliable evidence relative to your PPI identity, if you want to debate any conclusion I have made.

Especially, you need to review the recent information presented by BrianDoyle, and explain how and why it is wrong, while presenting your conclusions, and the basis for such.

The comment about what SarahStanton reportedly said was actually a reference to her being labeled a liar. But, I trust it to be what she "reportedly"said because of relative factors/incidents.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 15, 2018, 04:33:22 PM
iEugenio wrote:   
Quote
To my knowledge Doyle has been suspended from this site. I think it was over his vitriol towards other members. 
No, it was because I posted good evidence that started to disprove the favored Prayer Man posters and the moderation couldn't have that so they bullied me off the board...

Quote
  Jim, you may not know who troppocrat is, but everything he wrote there sound just like Doyle.  Of course Doyle may have used someone else since he does all kinds of things in order to get on places he is banned.  But the fact that its him is revealed by his reference to the PW page. He used you to give some info on Stanton, hoping it would then jimmy open the PM thing.  Which it did.  So what you have done, apparently unawares, is you have given hims a chance that he would not have had to insult Bart, Andrej, and Gordon and the Mods.

Here is dirty Jim trying to exploit the false reasons why I was banned by reducing it to that level in order to avoid the evidence I posted...Jim is a really cowardly dirty player...He ignores the arguments of evidence I have offered and their value towards understanding the Prayer Man issue in order to reduce my postings to "an effort to insult Bart, Andrej, and Gordon" and in doing so proves my point that the Education Forum has been taken over by the Prayer Man bullies who are using brute tactics and defamation to avoid evidence..."Doyle" is now the equivalent to "Fetzer"...

In his cheap defamation of me Jim ignores that my e-mail that was posted by Hargrove possessed a serious new witnessing of Oswald being seen by Stanton drinking a Coke by the lunch room...Jim is so zealous in his defamation and bullying that he ignores important break-through information in the assassination and therefore proves my point...Kinda dumb...I didn't "use" Hargrove...Hargrove volunteered after seeing the abuse Jim and his ROKC gang committed against me...Jim is a full ROKC supporter now...A group banned by Deep Politics...Yet he doesn't post on their board...When I asked Lauren why he allows Jim to front for a group that was banned by Deep Politics he banned me instead of answering...
Quote
The incredible thing about this is that Doyle got into all this when he was snookered by Duncan's manufacture of PW out of PM.  What Duncan did to create that confection has been  exposed by several people including David Josephs.  But yet, Doyle hangs on to it like a talisman.  And this is what I find so odd, he unites  himself with someone as WC obsessed as McRae in his jihad on this issue.  Now he lives on FB and continues his Ahab crusade there.  I have never liked people who campaign so self righteously on issues that there is simply legitimate debate about. And then unites with someone like Duncan who campaigns for an idea that there really is no debate about--Oswald did not shoot JFK.  Period. 
         

Jim is not being honest here...He tried to smear me via Duncan on DPF...When I told him the woman's face in Wiegman was discovered by Chris Davidson he ignored it...David Josephs is a fraud...He did not debunk Davidson's image nor could lying Jim here show where he did...When Davidson posted his metadata Josephs and every other Prayer Man supporter were dead quiet to a man and could not answer it...For 2 years I demanded Jim answer Davidson's metadata on the DPF board...He refused and Lauren acted against his own site rules by refusing to make him...Now DiEugenio is right back to his old dirty tricks just like none of this ever happened...He is a very dirty player who maximizes a person not being able to respond through unfair banning and censorship...

I am not "united" with Duncan...If he holds Lone Nutter views I separate myself from them (as Jim already knows)...Jim is just trying to smear me as a Lone Nutter in order to avoid answering my evidence...Even worse, Jim backed Kamp's claim that Carolyn Arnold was lying...So while Jim is falsely accusing me of Lone Nutterism, it is actually himself who backs the FBI's alteration of Carolyn Arnold's statement...That's just about the worst offense you could commit as a CT...When I asked Lauren to enforce the DPF rules and call Jim out on this Lauren attacked me, deleted my posts, and banned me...He protected Jim from answering this and he never did...Jim is the type of character who lets people lose their public ability to post over his wrongdoing and stays quiet...
         
What Jim does here is exploit personal defamation and slander to the max in order to not answer good evidence...And the Education Forum moderation allows him...If you look at what Hargrove posted and compare it to Jim's response he has succeeded in methodically avoiding answering the points of evidence I emphasized...Jim uses defamation to avoid admitting the Davidson enhancement is good and proves Prayer Man is a woman (Sarah Stanton)...Jim and his ego are not afraid to bully people into majorly wrong evidence that misleads the world on the assassination... 

At least Duncan allows opposing opinions - which is better than the Murphy bullies who banned every poster who opposed them on the Education Forum, making up cowardly excuses for it...And not caring about the good evidence they excluded in the process...
Quote
As I have said before, until someone gets a first gen copy of the film, no one knows for sure who the figure is, but the idea that its a female is really out there.

If Jim bothered to honestly answer the evidence I've shown instead of flagrantly ignoring it he would see that we can validly determine the identity of Prayer Man from the current films we have...He is calling for better scans in order to bail out the Murphy theorists and do damage control for them...It is also quite obvious to me that Jim does not possess the skill to participate at this level of technical examination...Jim is trying to use fancy writing to get around evidence he's flagrantly ignoring in public and it isn't working...Jim holds the clearly seen woman's face in Davidson in contempt in order to refer to his fancy writing...       
Quote

So Doyle used someone else's research to find Stanton's survivors and now claims this as his own.  But the point is, his argument does not really stand on them, it stands on Frazier.  And he spins what he says to make it declarative.  When he was shown  the figure at the ARRC conference, Frazier had it a few inches from his face.  He said that the copy was not good enough to decipher.  But now, according to Doyle, its the female Stanton.

That's a false accusation that I should sue Mr DiEugenio for...All I did was follow-through on a name posted on a public site...Mr DiEugenio is obviously a cheap smearer who uses low tactics to make someone look bad to avoid answering their legitimate evidence...

Mr DiEugenio is a liar...Anyone can listen to Frazier's comment in the video I posted and there is nothing in there that I spun...My quotation of Frazier's references to Sarah are accurate and are true to Frazier's context...

Jim is dishonestly trying to force Frazier's failure to directly identify Prayer Man when asked as the only allowable evidence...Like Kamp he is dishonestly doing that because he's trying to avoid answering what Frazier is clearly saying in the video Hargrove forwarded...DiEugenio is dodging having to answer where Frazier is putting Stanton when he is allowed to go back to his memory freely...Jim is using this dishonest defamation approach to avoid honestly addressing what Frazier is more than clearly outlining...When allowed to go back to his memory freely Frazier describes in repeated detail, in multiple accounts, looking at Sarah and asking her what Calvery had said...What Jim is flagrantly avoiding here is that Graves & Larsen have correctly located Calvery at the base of the steps...Both Calvery sons told me they thought the woman Graves identified was their mother...Shelley & Lovelady spoke to Calvery before they left the steps...Couch/Darnell shows Shelley & Lovelady about 4 seconds after leaving the steps...Common detective work then references Frazier's saying he asked "Sarah" what Calvery had said...Don't play dumb Jim, with shots going off at a president Frazier did not take more than 4 seconds to turn to Sarah and ask her what Calvery said...Couch/Darnell shows Frazier and Prayer Man still because they are talking to each other...That makes Prayer Man Stanton and there is just no way around it, and calling for better copies won't spare you from credibly answering it...The timing given by Frazier in his accounts that you are ignoring forces him to be speaking to Sarah in the clips...

The Education Forum allows Jim to use a very dirty trick in his response...Jim cites the video but then switches in his response to Frazier's failing to identify Prayer Man when asked...Those are two completely different things and dishonest Jim dodges answering what Frazier clearly said in the video via this deliberate deception...I'm sure if he responds to this he'll dodge it once again by saying I am insulting him or some other such evasive garbage that the Education Forum moderation gives him full leave to post while those who call him on it are banned...Jim fails to answer where Frazier puts Sarah in the video...He does that on purpose because he knows exactly where Frazier puts her...
   
Jim accuses Gilbride and myself of not being sincere but anyone can see that he has exploited bully-like unfair banning to defame and slander in order to avoid answering legitimate points of evidence...This can all be reduced to one point...The Education Forum moderation and Jim DiEugenio should ask Kamp to please answer where he puts Stanton in relation to Frazier's statement in the video...Kamp is just ignoring that Frazier makes clear Stanton is on the landing ("space" as Frazier puts it) and in the shadows...Kamp is in contempt of Frazier's clear location for Stanton and places her down on the east steps out in the bright sun...Two places she clearly couldn't be according to Frazier's description...Frazier couldn't talk to her down there either...Kamp also ignores that Stanton said she couldn't see the limousine at the time of the shots...That perfectly matches Prayer Man's position where the west wall of the portal blocks the view...Kamp's Stanton has a clear view of the limo...So Jim serves as cover for Kamp and Stancak and bails them out once again from actually answering the evidence - and he does so via cheap slander...Very dirty and very dishonest...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 15, 2018, 06:02:25 PM
 
Quote
Ask your pal Brian Doyle to explain the following:

Doyle uses Frazier's claim to have spoken with Gloria Calvery (of which there is no visual ID btw) in an imaginary time line to disprove Prayer Man.

How can this be when

1/Joe Molina spoke with her in the lobby, and is seen in Darnell next to Frazier!  On P273.

2/Frazier did not even speak to her at all! He overheard her just before going back in.

Go on thrill us all. If you want to be the errand boy then you may as well deliver some quality.


It is bizarre that the Education Forum moderation and members allow Kamp to get away with this kind of response...In his Garrison Trial testimony Frazier described the event in better detail...He said Calvery ran up to the steps shouting the president had been shot...He said he didn't hear what she said so he asked Sarah what Calvery had said...Sarah responded "I think she said the president has been shot"...Kamp knows this...He's just dishonestly playing dumb in order to avoid what he knows to be true and the Education Forum moderation and its members are letting him...

The Education Forum has allowed Kamp to get away with this cheap tactic of going on the offensive with disingenuous questions to avoid answering the point for years now and it has been quite effective at helping him avoid answering the correct evidence...Kamp actually uses the child-like tactic of focusing on the semantics of Frazier "hearing" or "speaking to" Calvery instead of answering the point and the Education Forum lets him...

Kamp's point here is idiotic and avoids answering what Frazier clearly described in the video...No one asks Kamp to please answer what was originally written...That Calvery's being located at the base of the steps means she has already made her run and shouted and therefore Frazier has already heard her...This is reinforced by the fact Shelley & Lovelady spoke to Calvery before they left the steps...Kamp's response makes no effort to answer that Couch/Darnell shows Shelley & Lovelady headed up the Elm St extension...They have left the steps about 4 seconds before Couch/Darnell...That means the timing forces Frazier to be well in to the process of asking Sarah what Calvery had said...

Kamp scoffs that this is an "imaginary timeline"...But he ignores that it perfectly matches all the established witnessing and testimony...This is what Kamp does...When he gets to evidence that refutes him he mocks it and dismisses it...But the truth is that evidence is good and he hasn't credibly acknowledged it or answered it...And this is all just fine with the 95% majority on the Education Forum who endorsed Murphy...And now Kamp has the great Jim DiEugenio acting as muscle for him and his childish entries...

The Education Forum once again allows Kamp to enter a highly uncredible response that holds the best argument of the evidence on the internet in contempt in order to avoid answering the points that were put to him...Any credible look at this issue shows that Frazier has made the timing of when he spoke to Sarah more than apparent in his video interview...Kamp is obviously making efforts to avoid acknowledging this because he knows it forces researchers to admit that Couch/Darnell shows Frazier looking at and speaking to Prayer Man at the moment Frazier describes himself as talking to Sarah...

A serious researcher would make his best objective effort to gauge where exactly Sarah is according to Frazier's statement...Anyone can see Kamp is making petty excuses and is deliberately avoiding this because he already knows what it shows...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 15, 2018, 07:20:57 PM
I am not "united" with Duncan...If he holds Lone Nutter views I separate myself from them

Factoid Man DiEugenio knows nothing about the JFK assassination. He thinks the driver shot JFK.




Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 15, 2018, 08:42:18 PM
Then how does he know where to place his mannequins? How does he identify the images represented by his mannequins?

Take any model, then move figures around on it until they match all known evidence. In this case, you can then work out which step each subject was on, which is practically impossible for most laymen from the images alone.
How does he identify each individual? Take a guess.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 15, 2018, 08:50:09 PM
The comment about what SarahStanton reportedly said was actually a reference to her being labeled a liar.

I don't understand. What I asked you was, where and when did Stanton say she saw Oswald?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 15, 2018, 09:01:25 PM
I have no desire, or intent, to promote, or embrace any false assertion(s) as evidence as to the identity of PrayerPersonImage.

Promotion of a VirtualEntrancePortal at the TexasSchoolBookDepository, along with VirtualOccupants of the VirtualStairs/Landing, is a promoter's perception, not reality. And, said perception appears to promote a viewpoint, without regard for for authentic persons, nor accurate placement.

Unfortunately, there also appears to be ImageInsertions "added" to a photo/film still, that is not seen in other versions. So, I suppose the question is,at least for me, are the ImageInsertions based on VirtualImages? Or, are the VirtualImages based on ImageInsertions?


Although some references made here, the VirtualImages and ImageInsertions appear to be promoted on another forum(s), for the most part.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 15, 2018, 09:13:52 PM
This is over guys...In this video Buell Frazier clearly describes "Standing in the shadows up on the 'landing' " (Buell calls it a space) after Calvery ran up shouting...He says that he and Sarah were standing in the shadows talking about what Calvery had said...Prayer Man is in the shadows and Frazier is seen facing and talking to "him"...
...

He also describes going down to the first step before this crying woman came by, anyway let's not focus on that, he also said they were both standing in the shadows, so let's assume his memory is that good after all this time(which I actually cannot do), then the unidentified person to his left could be her and since they are much closer to each other...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 15, 2018, 09:31:13 PM

In his cheap defamation of me Jim ignores that my e-mail that was posted by Hargrove possessed a serious new witnessing of Oswald being seen by Stanton drinking a Coke by the lunch room...

LOL!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 15, 2018, 09:32:31 PM
I don't understand. What I asked you was, where and when did Stanton say she saw Oswald?

Actually, Mr Pollard, I do not know where she was nor when she reportedly made the comment. ???

If you need additional information about said subject, I refer you to your own post/reply from June 9, 2018, where you quoted Mr Doyle, and appeared to dispute the report of said comment.
::)

In any event, I see no need for additional space for said subject, therefor our discussion of this issue is now complete. >:(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 15, 2018, 09:38:14 PM

"I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time or at any time during that day". -- Sarah Stanton, 3/18/64

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62312&relPageId=20
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 15, 2018, 09:44:33 PM
I have no desire, or intent, to promote, or embrace any false assertion(s) as evidence as to the identity of PrayerPersonImage.

Promotion of a VirtualEntrancePortal at the TexasSchoolBookDepository, along with VirtualOccupants of the VirtualStairs/Landing, is a promoter's perception, not reality. And, said perception appears to promote a viewpoint, without regard for for authentic persons, nor accurate placement.

Unfortunately, there also appears to be ImageInsertions "added" to a photo/film still, that is not seen in other versions. So, I suppose the question is,at least for me, are the ImageInsertions based on VirtualImages? Or, are the VirtualImages based on ImageInsertions?.

Are you aware that you are promoting it just by referring to it?
It's his interpretaion of the evidence and even though it matches it in almost every way, I doubt anyone is confusing it with reality but your concern is noted.
If you are referring to the "small figure" on the east in Darnell, which I couldn't see in the moving footage then yes, that is one insertion based on his interpretation, now what other insertion have you noticed yourself?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 15, 2018, 09:56:24 PM
"I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time or at any time during that day". -- Sarah Stanton, 3/18/64

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62312&relPageId=20

Duly noted, Mr Nickerson. I think I understand some reasoning for "opposing statements", but it requires more study. In any event, I repeat, the comment was primarily due to my reading a comment referring to SarahStanton as a liar.

Having a statement, and an "opposing reported comment" indicates a possible error, not worthy of referring to a now deceased person as a liar.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 15, 2018, 10:04:36 PM
Brian,
As surely evident, again without reliable evidence supporting the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, the presented evidence indicating PrayerPersonImage to be a female, then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository building, continues to be "discounted", and disputed.

Sadly, now even SarahDeanStanton has been labeled as a "liar", simply because she indicated herself to have seen LHO on the second floor, just before her going down to the first floor, and onto the entrance landing.


Edited:For RayMitcham.

Quoted in full. Speaks for itself, actually no it doesn't.
Above you were promoting thirdhand hearsay from Brian as evidence and were apparently upset how others didn't take it for granted as a fact.
This is exactly what I am getting at, your perception of what constitutes real evidence/proof.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 15, 2018, 10:21:14 PM
Larry, do us all a favour,
when you refer to people calling witnesses liars, be specific, name them or where they are saying it, "other there" or initials work.
Now grab something tight.
Witnesses get it wrong all the time and yes it's been proven, witnesses lie, in fact we all do, everyday, with all manner of people and the only way to avoid it is stop talking and remain perfectly still.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 15, 2018, 10:32:09 PM
A thread hijack is occurring here where the video I posted in post #281 on page 29 is being ignored...

In that video Frazier makes clear that he and Sarah were standing deepest in to the shadows in the portal when Calvery ran up to the steps...One look at the Darnell frame image shown on the cover shot for the video shows Frazier and Prayer Man being the two persons deepest in to the shadows in the portal...

In the video Frazier describes in detail how he was talking to Sarah when Calvery came up crying...In his Garrison Trial testimony Frazier went into even more detail explaining that Calvery was shouting "The president has been shot" on her way to the steps...Frazier said he didn't hear Calvery so he asked "Sarah" what she had said...Sarah answered "I think she said the president has been shot"...With this detailed we have to then ask where and when this happened exactly?

One look at the Couch/Darnell film shows Gloria Calvery at the base of the steps...Shelley & Lovelady have already spoken to Calvery at the steps and are on their way up the extension...This means we can safely determine the timing seen in Couch/Darnell is several seconds after Calvery has imparted her information and Frazier is in the process of communicating with "Sarah" about it...Couch/Darnell shows Frazier focused on Prayer Man so therefore Prayer Man is Stanton...Prayer Man is 5 foot 5 inches in height...The same height as Sarah Stanton as confirmed by her daughter in law...

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 15, 2018, 11:01:15 PM
A thread hijack is occurring here where the video I posted in post #281 on page 29 is being ignored...

In that video Frazier makes clear that he and Sarah were standing deepest in to the shadows in the portal when Calvery ran up to the steps...One look at the Darnell frame image shown on the cover shot for the video shows Frazier and Prayer Man being the two persons deepest in to the shadows in the portal...

You're telling us...?! Thumb1:
I just mentioned this an hour ago.
On that video Frasier said he went down before the crying woman came up, how is that "making it clear"? There's also another person right next to him on his left who remains unidentified.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 15, 2018, 11:12:43 PM
Brian, does Stanton have grey hair in that photo you shared or blond? I assumed it was grey. I also assumed it to be a woman in her early sixties... how old does she look to you?
If this was from 1962-64 she would be 40-42yo, that seems very unlikely to me, being big-boned doesn't put age on your face like that but if she's blond that might change my perception a tad.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 15, 2018, 11:32:08 PM
On that video Frasier said he went down before the crying woman came up, how is that "making it clear"? There's also another person right next to him on his left who remains unidentified.
Sure Barry very sincere...You are ignoring that Couch/Darnell shows us the reality of Frazier being up on the landing and looking directly at Prayer Man...Your posts tend to ignore the best evidence and focus of diversionary trivialities...Meanwhile the thread contains enough information to show Prayer Man is the 5 foot 5 Stanton's relatives said she was in height...Prayer Man has Stanton's chubby forearm...Prayer Man has Stanton's wide hips...

Frazier is looking at Prayer Man...He is not looking at the person to his left who could be Molina...

You are ignoring the timing involved with Calvery's being identified at the bottom of the steps...It means Frazier has to be communicating with Stanton at that moment...Couch/Darnell clearly shows him looking at Prayer Man at that instant...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 16, 2018, 01:42:40 AM
In the full appearance Frazier first mentions Sarah here and twice in the same sentence he motions to his left with his hand, game on.
https://youtu.be/61woNu98rlM?t=5m29s (https://youtu.be/61woNu98rlM?t=5m29s)

5.29 into this for the link deprived.

Was he asked which side she was on? No, but would it even matter since we have to rely on this old man's memory?
Frazier would have to pay me to go listen to him live.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 16, 2018, 03:05:04 AM

Sure Barry very sincere...You are ignoring that Couch/Darnell shows us the reality of Frazier being up on the landing and looking directly at Prayer Man...Your posts tend to ignore the best evidence and focus of diversionary trivialities...Meanwhile the thread contains enough information to show Prayer Man is the 5 foot 5 Stanton's relatives said she was in height...Prayer Man has Stanton's chubby forearm...Prayer Man has Stanton's wide hips...

Frazier is looking at Prayer Man...He is not looking at the person to his left who could be Molina...

You are ignoring the timing involved with Calvery's being identified at the bottom of the steps...It means Frazier has to be communicating with Stanton at that moment...Couch/Darnell clearly shows him looking at Prayer Man at that instant...

Anyone can tell I was just talking about what Frazier said in the video you linked to, not what I believe is true.
I don't think he's looking directly at PM but at the females coming up the steps...
No one saw a chubby forearm until you found a picture of a plump Stanton, I can't even tell if it's a bare arm or sleeved in Darnell, the Stanton image does not compute with PM for me in any single way, if that's really her in the sixties you've ruled her out.
I don't see wide hips, I see a slim masculine looking figure, hands that match and in a loose fitting shirt.
There is no way you can tell what Frazier is doing in Darnell, like if he's talking or even paying attention to anything, or if he heard shots or why he was so suprised after alledgedly hearing shots to then learn that someone was hit. Very slow. very, very high or he heard nothing that unusual.
PM and Frazier were not standing together, he and the person to his left were.

Sure the Calvery thing could be correct, could be her, she could be in the act of telling those on the steps that JFK was hit but it has nothing to do with  who PM is for me since I don't trust the memories of witnesses to paint pictures for me.
You know why BWF claims that after hearing shooting or hearing about it, that his first thought was to stand still?  Because someone has shown him image from Darnell of him doing exactly that, arms folded and unmoved, still in the same spot he watched the motorcade from. It needs explaining, that was his version, I have my own.

You only saw a fat arm after new external evidence was presented, never before, not once, now however that's all you can see and you expect everyone else to see it too otherwise they're "ignoring real new evidence", it's very childlike, I don't see it, I see you promoting an anyone but Oswald agenda and I would never let you anywhere near a witness because of this clear lack of impartiality.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 16, 2018, 04:42:39 AM
Nice try Barry but the time period Frazier refers to at the 5 minute mark is well before Wiegman when the JFK limousine passes by the front steps...Wiegman gives a good look at where you would have Stanton in your scenario and there was nobody there...

Prayer Man is seen in the same spot by the west side of the portal in Wiegman...Frazier is further back into the shadows behind Lovelady in Wiegman but basically in the same spot...Wiegman is using different film and equipment so his images of the portal occupants are less defined in the shade areas...

Very simply Frazier and Prayer Man are pretty much in the same spot in Wiegman and there is no one to Frazier's left...

The people who are to Frazier's left are seen in Altgens and Sarah Stanton is not one of them...

Your submission doesn't really answer that Frazier is facing Prayer Man at a time when the Calvery timing establishes he is communicating with Sarah...

Prayer Man is Stanton's 5 foot 5 in height...

Meanwhile if you go to 40:52 and watch Frazier's body language he makes two clear gestures to his right towards where Prayer Man was when referring to his communicating with Sarah...
 
When Frazier says he was standing in front of the first step he is talking about the edge of the landing... This is proven by the fact Frazier goes from talking about being by the first step and hearing Calvery to being on the landing with Sarah when he reacted to encountering Calvery by that step...

"We looked at one another" - Frazier looks right toward Prayer Man...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 16, 2018, 11:32:39 AM
In the full appearance Frazier first mentions Sarah here and twice in the same sentence he motions to his left with his hand, game on.

Can you explain the relevance, Barry?

Frazier's comment at around 5.29 in the video which you refer to is a conversation he had with Sarah BEFORE the assassination had started, which in my opinion is not relevant to the debated images of the Prayer Person's location which are scenes filmed AFTER the shooting has finished.
Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 01:33:53 PM
In the full appearance Frazier first mentions Sarah here and twice in the same sentence he motions to his left with his hand, game on.
https://youtu.be/61woNu98rlM?t=5m29s (https://youtu.be/61woNu98rlM?t=5m29s)

5.29 into this for the link deprived.


This is a great catch Barry. Frazier is talking about the point when he caught his first sight of JFK and Jackie as the limousine came on to Elm Street. He recalls having remarked to Sarah Stanton how beautiful Jackie looks. Twice he involuntarily motions with his left hand, including on the words 'the lady that was standing beside me'.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 01:54:47 PM
(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)

The more I look at this image the more I wonder...

Is PrayerPerson a slim man with his body facing forward (=south), his arms folded and his head turned a good bit to the left?

One giveaway here would be the white 'V' of his open shirt collar, which is not directly under his chin.


Place your finger over his supposed 'left arm/hand' (=the 'arm/hand' we see to his right as we look at the image) and you should see what I mean. Takes a bit of getting used to seeing as we've been thinking of this figure as 'Prayer Wo/Man' for so long.


I think that 'left arm/hand' may actually be something he's clutching in his right hand, which is tucked under his left elbow. This something (paper bag? newspaper?) is sticking out from the left side of his body.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 03:39:47 PM
There's been a suggestion on this thread that because Sarah Stanton said the limousine went out of her view as it went down Elm Street this places her west of the entrance railing. Not true. Otis Williams was east of the railing and he told Larry Sneed in No More Silence:

I had a clear view as it passed by of the President and all in the car, and then it went behind a little wall going toward the underpass ... I didn't actually see the President hit as he went behind that little wall.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 03:49:19 PM
There's been a suggestion on this thread that Sarah Stanton seeing LHO near the second floor lunchroom before the shooting somehow destroys the whole LHO = PM theory. Not true. The original theory on the Education forum thread was BASED on LHO visiting the lunchroom for a coke before the shooting and not after it. The story Carolyn Arnold told Anthony Summers in 1978 about seeing LHO in the lunchroom was 100% believed. If Stanton told family members she saw Oswald up there before the shooting, then that only strengthens the idea that the interrogation reports put words in LHO's mouth. He never said anything to Will Fritz about going up to the second floor for a coke AFTER the shooting.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 16, 2018, 04:00:16 PM
Is PrayerPerson a slim man with his body facing forward (=south), his arms folded and his head turned a good bit to the left?


Only a person who was purely ignorant of the evidence would suggest it...Duncan posted a GIF of the Prayer Man images a few pages back and it shows a woman who is facing Frazier holding her purse in front of her with both hands...The corner of the purse is making a notch in Sarah's right wrist...

Prayer Man's hips are very wide so anyone suggesting "he" is slim lacks photo analysis skill...Sarah Stanton has wide whips by the way...Jake Sykes made an avatar with Oswald overlapped on to Prayer Man and Oswald only takes up 2/3rd's of Prayer Man's girth...ROKC didn't even notice that Sykes' avatar refuted Oswald as Prayer Man...

This is made even more clear when a stabilized clip of both Wiegman and Darnell is shown of Prayer Man and "his" pivot towards Frazier...The pivot is Sarah Stanton turning towards Frazier to discuss what Calvery had said...

After the 40:52 mark in the video Frazier makes a very detectable lean towards his right when discussing his interaction with Sarah...He also turns his head and eyes slightly right when remembering looking at Sarah...There's no doubt Sarah is Prayer Man because the Darnell scene is the exact moment he describes as the time when he was interacting with Sarah over Calvery's information...

Alan Ford and Barry just outright ignore that Prayer Man is 5 foot 5 in height - which happens to be Sarah Stanton's height...You can review my posting over the years on Prayer Man...I have been saying for several years that Prayer Man is 5 foot 5 when compared to Frazier and that if we ever found her relatives they would confirm that Sarah was also 5 foot 5...They did...


         
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 04:17:46 PM

After the 40:52 mark in the video Frazier makes a very detectable lean towards his right when discussing his interaction with Sarah...He also turns his head and eyes slightly right when remembering looking at Sarah...


Yes, but he's talking about an interaction with Sarah down at the bottom of the steps. Why did you leave this detail out? Do you lack quotation analysis skills?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 16, 2018, 04:29:15 PM
The story Carolyn Arnold told Anthony Summers in 1978 about seeing LHO in the lunchroom was 100% believed. If Stanton told family members she saw Oswald up there before the shooting, then that only strengthens the idea that the interrogation reports put words in LHO's mouth. He never said anything to Will Fritz about going up to the second floor for a coke AFTER the shooting.


This source of this rubbish is the uncredible Australian fantasist Greg Parker whose specialty is going deeply into the known assassination evidence and rewiring everything according to his fanciful imagination and then appealing to the public that he has figured out what really happened...Greg Parker is not a credible researcher and his "work" is just the silly efforts of a person who likes to take complex conspiracies apart and re-assemble them like a young boy who takes his dad's radio apart and can't put it back together...

The trouble with the rot Alan Ford is posting here is Carolyn Arnold was a real witness who was there at the time and did witness Oswald in the lunch room at 12:25...Alan Ford, Bart Kamp and the Prayer Man cult are just contemporary internet assassination "researchers" who speak with authority and assure us what they say is factual, but the truth is they are just a lunatic fringe with keyboard access who have grouped together under Parker's nuttery...Anyone can read Bart Kamp's postings and realize he is a punk who should not be taken seriously...He has the nerve to place himself over major witness Carolyn Arnold and tell people what she was really thinking and what really happened...Thanks to DiEugenio the research community has lost its mind and actually taken these kooks seriously and signed-on with their mangling of the evidence...Anyone who reads what Kamp offers will see it is just a parroting of Sean Murphy...The only reason Kamp takes the side of FBI and their altering of Carolyn Arnold's statement is because he knows that Oswald's being in the lunch room at 12:25 makes it impossible that he was Prayer Man...A simple-minded thread exists in Parker and Kamp's sickly spun web of needing to discredit any witnessing that threatens the Prayer Man theory...That is why Parker and Murphy attacked the 2nd floor lunch room encounter...It is because they were aware that when it was connected to Carolyn Arnold's witnessing it made it clear that Oswald was in the lunch room during the shooting for the 6 minutes in between...

Anyone with a skilled and honest approach to the witnessing will see subtle hints that Oswald told Fritz he was in the lunch room during the shooting...When Ball tried to get Fritz to say Oswald went upstairs to the lunch room to get the Coke Fritz wouldn't bite...Linguistic forensics pay very careful attention to wording...Fritz's answer to Ball was that Oswald just said he had a Coke...What Fritz was obviously indirectly saying to Ball there was Oswald said he was there the whole time...

In the Prayer Man cult's mind Sarah Stanton seeing Oswald by the lunch room; Carolyn Arnold seeing Oswald IN the lunch room; Fritz confirming his being in the lunch room and not going up there; Baker & Truly seeing Oswald there 6 minutes after Carolyn Arnold; and Oswald himself saying he was in the vicinity all adds up to everyone lying with Greg Parker figuring out how, and Oswald being Prayer Man, who has already been identified as Sarah Stanton with the Prayer Man cultists ignoring the evidence...

It angers me that Carolyn Arnold and Earl Golz couldn't be around to rip these Prayer Man people and Kamp a new one for insulting them this way...

Ford ignores that FBI potentially removed Stanton's story not because Oswald was on the front steps but because he was in the 2nd floor lunch room where they were already recorded as having erased Carolyn Arnold's account...


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 16, 2018, 04:33:29 PM
(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)

The more I look at this image the more I wonder...

Is PrayerPerson a slim man with his body facing forward (=south), his arms folded and his head turned a good bit to the left?

One giveaway here would be the white 'V' of his open shirt collar, which is not directly under his chin.


Place your finger over his supposed 'left arm/hand' (=the 'arm/hand' we see to his right as we look at the image) and you should see what I mean. Takes a bit of getting used to seeing as we've been thinking of this figure as 'Prayer Wo/Man' for so long.


I think that 'left arm/hand' may actually be something he's clutching in his right hand, which is tucked under his left elbow. This something (paper bag? newspaper?) is sticking out from the left side of his body.

As time goes by, it becomes more and more evident to me that PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository. And, said image appears to be looking somewhat to her right, most likely just after, or before, a head turn.

It appears to me that PrayerPersonImage has a cup in hand, and standing at an angle that blocks view of her left forearm, but her purse is likely seen hanging tightly to said left forearm.

SarahDeanStanton stated that she could not see the President's limousine during the shooting, due to her location, and did not indicate it being blocked from view by some "little wall".

I see no way possible to confirm seeing, on the photo/film, any v-neck/open shirt collar on PrayerPersonImage.

I do hope that any claim that PrayerPersonImage represents a male, especially any claim that said image represents LeeHarveyOswald, is accompanied by something other than now deceased"witnesses are liars" as evidence.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 04:39:29 PM

Anyone who reads what Kamp offers will see it is just a parroting of Sean Murphy...The only reason Kamp takes the side of FBI and their altering of Carolyn Arnold's statement is because he knows that Oswald's being in the lunch room at 12:25 makes it impossible that he was Prayer Man...

What are you talking about? Murphy sided 100% with Carolyn Arnold. His whole argument was that Oswald's being in the lunch room a few minutes before the assassination makes a joke of what the interrogation reports claimed he said.

It seems you've never even read the original Oswald Leaving TSBD? thread on the other forum. Uncredible!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 04:46:02 PM
SarahDeanStanton stated that she could not see the President's limousine during the shooting, due to her location,


Which is exactly what Otis Williams, who was standing to the east of the entrance railing, also said.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the white/blonde haired woman identified as Sarah Stanton in a photo from 1962-4 could possibly be Prayer Person? Are you blind?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 16, 2018, 04:48:09 PM
Yes, but he's talking about an interaction with Sarah down at the bottom of the steps. Why did you leave this detail out? Do you lack quotation analysis skills?


No, you and Barry are wrong...Go back and listen again...Because the Prayer Man nuts are so desperate to focus on specks that they can use to ignore the rest of the overwhelming evidence they are assuming Frazier is talking about walking down the steps to the bottom step in order to encounter Gloria Calvery...He's not...What he is saying there is he walked up to the edge of the landing by the first step down...Proof of this is when he describes encountering Calvery he then tells of turning to Sarah up on the landing in order to absorb what Calvery had said...Frazier doesn't say "I walked back up to the landing and then confronted Sarah"...Watch the video...Frazier goes from encountering Calvery to turning to Sarah on the landing immediately...That is because he is on the landing the whole time...The testimony says Shelley & Lovelady spoke to Calvery before leaving the steps...Not Shelley, Lovelady and Frazier...

Sorry Alan but anyone who had a skilled and competent grasp of the evidence and detective work would realize that for Frazier to be on the bottom step while encountering Calvery would require him to be caught in Darnell going back up to the landing...There isn't enough time for Frazier to travel down to the bottom step and back up and the only reason you are not realizing this is because your circuits are corrupted by desperation to bend everything towards Prayer Man...This is good evidence of how the Prayer Man theory came about and the minds that created it and how...

You tried to seize on this in order to ignore the nod to the right Frazier made that you omitted in your response...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 04:53:28 PM

No, you and Barry are wrong...Go back and listen again...Because the Prayer Man nuts are so desperate to focus on specks that they can use to ignore the rest of the overwhelming evidence they are assuming Frazier is talking about walking down the steps to the bottom step in order to encounter Gloria Calvery...He's not...What he is saying there is he walked up to the edge of the landing by the first step down...Proof of this is when he describes encountering Calvery he then tells of turning to Sarah up on the landing in order to absorb what Calvery had said...Frazier doesn't say "I walked back up to the landing and then confronted Sarah"...Watch the video...Frazier goes from encountering Calvery to turning to Sarah on the landing immediately...That is because he is on the landing the whole time...The testimony says Shelley & Lovelady spoke to Calvery before leaving the steps...Not Shelley, Lovelady and Frazier...

Sorry Alan but anyone who had a skilled and competent grasp of the evidence and detective work would realize that for Frazier to be on the bottom step while encountering Calvery would require him to be caught in Darnell going back up to the landing...There isn't enough time for Frazier to travel down to the bottom step and back up and the only reason you are not realizing this is because your circuits are corrupted by desperation to bend everything towards Prayer Man...This is good evidence of how the Prayer Man theory came about and the minds that created it and how...

You tried to seize on this in order to ignore the nod to the right Frazier made that you omitted in your response...

Here is what Frazier actually says: "I had walked down and was standing in front of the first step". A different scene to what Darnell shows. Stop wriggling!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 16, 2018, 04:56:05 PM
What are you talking about? Murphy sided 100% with Carolyn Arnold. His whole argument was that Oswald's being in the lunch room a few minutes before the assassination makes a joke of what the interrogation reports claimed he said.

It seems you've never even read the original Oswald Leaving TSBD? thread on the other forum. Uncredible!


Alan gets out of town quicker than Sean Murphy before he has to answer the entire post and all the evidence in it...

The Prayer Man cult has no problem with Murphy disappearing in 2013...The same year that Frazier came out in public with his identifying the person next to him as being Sarah Stanton...What a coincidence!

No credible assassination theorist has ever just disappeared...Murphy scooted because he knew he couldn't answer to his BS once non-cultists caught up to it...

Moderated debate would say "Wait a minute Mr Ford...Not so fast...Answer the rest of what he said"...Refusal or dishonest answers would then result in penalties...


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 05:00:33 PM

Alan gets out of town quicker than Sean Murphy before he has to answer the entire post and all the evidence in it...

The Prayer Man cult has no problem with Murphy disappearing in 2013...The same year that Frazier came out in public with his identifying the person next to him as being Sarah Stanton...What a coincidence!

No credible assassination theorist has ever just disappeared...Murphy scooted because he knew he couldn't answer to his BS once non-cultists caught up to it...

Moderated debate would say "Wait a minute Mr Ford...Not so fast...Answer the rest of what he said"...Refusal or dishonest answers would then result in penalties...

Who cares about the history behind what you call the 'Prayer Man cult'? A theory was developed back in 2013 and you have just exposed the fact that you're pig ignorant of one of its major elements (Carolyn Arnold seeing Oswald in the lunchroom). Sad!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 16, 2018, 05:07:12 PM
Here is what Frazier actually says: "I had walked down and was standing in front of the first step". A different scene to what Darnell shows. Stop wriggling!

You are deliberately not answering the rest of what I said...You're not credible...

Frazier did not have time to make that trip and get back up to the landing in Darnell...

Yes, a different scene than what Darnell shows...You Prayer Man crazies are so divorced from reality, and so self-deluded by your lies, that you make fools of yourselves by not realizing that YES the Darnell film shows reality and proves my point...That Frazier isn't seen going back up to the landing like would be required if he had walked down to the bottom step...Your logic is so perverted that you strongly make my point for me yet phrase it as if it backed you...

The "first step" Frazier is referencing is the first step down from the landing...You are deliberately ignoring that the video shows Frazier saying he immediately looked at Sarah after hearing this from Calvery...If Frazier was at the bottom step he couldn't immediately turn to Sarah like he says...He would have had to walk back up to the landing to do so...

You and Barry use references to Frazier's actions in the video to make your bogus points but ignore those same clear actions when they prove what I am saying...

Twice now you have avoided addressing how Frazier nods to his right and shifts his eyes rightward when referring to Sarah...

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 05:10:34 PM
You are deliberately not answering the rest of what I said...You're not credible...

Frazier did not have time to make that trip and get back up to the landing in Darnell...

Yes, a different scene than what Darnell shows...You Prayer Man crazies are so divorced from reality, and so self-deluded by your lies, that you make fools of yourselves by not realizing that YES the Darnell film shows reality and proves my point...That Frazier isn't seen going back up to the landing like would be required if he had walked down to the bottom step...Your logic is so perverted that you strongly make my point for me yet phrase it as if it backed you...

The "first step" Frazier is referencing is the first step down from the landing...You are deliberately ignoring that the video shows Frazier saying he immediately looked at Sarah after hearing this from Calvery...If Frazier was at the bottom step he couldn't immediately turn to Sarah like he says...He would have had to walk back up to the landing to do so...

You and Barry use references to Frazier's actions in the video to make your bogus points but ignore those same clear actions when they prove what I am saying...

Twice now you have avoided addressing how Frazier nods to his right and shifts his eyes rightward when referring to Sarah...

No, I've quoted him accurately which you didn't do. When are you going to deal with Barry's point that twice Frazier gestures left with his left hand when mentioning Sarah at the top of the steps as the motorcade was passing? How many more times are you going to avoid addressing it?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 16, 2018, 05:14:04 PM
Who cares about the history behind what you call the 'Prayer Man cult'? A theory was developed back in 2013 and you have just exposed the fact that you're pig ignorant of one of its major elements (Carolyn Arnold seeing Oswald in the lunchroom). Sad!

I think this can be safely interpreted as Alan ignoring the gist of what has been established that Kamp took the side of FBI and its lies against a main witness...That makes Kamp a Warren Commission apologist when he needs their deception to get him out of evidence he knows refutes him...

Since Alan is making no effort at honestly addressing this I think we can thank him for the quick victory and his folding by refusing to answer the point that is being made and therefore indirectly conceding...

I hope the JFK research community has the sense to see the danger this sort of person and material poses to the credible assassination research world and its conspiracy evidence...

Alan is dodging that the current Prayer Man theory on the JFK internet is claiming Carolyn Arnold lied and did not see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room... 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 05:21:20 PM
I think this can be safely interpreted as Alan ignoring the gist of what has been established that Kamp took the side of FBI and its lies against a main witness...That makes Kamp a Warren Commission apologist when he needs their deception to get him out of evidence he knows refutes him...

Since Alan is making no effort at honestly addressing this I think we can thank him for the quick victory and his folding by refusing to answer the point that is being made and therefore indirectly conceding...

I hope the JFK research community has the sense to see the danger this sort of person and material poses to the credible assassination research world and its conspiracy evidence...

Alan is dodging that the current Prayer Man theory on the JFK internet is claiming Carolyn Arnold lied and did not see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...


I'll take this as a concession that you are unfamiliar with the original PrayerMan theory and, in your strange obsession with a number of individuals elsewhere, have spent the last ages fighting a complete straw man.

You have quite the knack for destroying your own theories. First you rule out Sarah Stanton as PM by publishing a 1962-4 photo of her. Then you give a huge shot in the arm to the LHO=PM theory by uncovering Sarah Stanton's encounter with LHO near the second floor lunchroom which supports what Carolyn Arnold was telling people back in 1978.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 16, 2018, 05:31:01 PM
No, I've quoted him accurately which you didn't do. When are you going to deal with Barry's point that twice Frazier gestures left with his left hand when mentioning Sarah at the top of the steps as the motorcade was passing? How many more times are you going to avoid addressing it?

I don't think Alan should be taken seriously...Duncan pointed-out that the time period mentioned by Frazier near the 5 minute mark is before Wiegman and may be as much as 1 minute before Darnell...It has been made clear already that even if Frazier gestured to his left that the time period in question makes his movements irrelevant...I don't think Frazier was gesturing Sarah's location at that point...

To ignore that Frazier's movements during his description of the Darnell scene are THE most relevant and try to force evidence that has been reasonably considered irrelevant in its place shows an outward contempt towards honest argument and site conduct...A modicum of reasoned, gentlemanly debate is assumed in this community and a person who tries to force such dubious contempt in the face of sound logic and evidence should have his ability to participate considered...

Alan is being deliberately dishonest here and his deceit does not deserve the dignity of a response...He knows as well as I do that the accuracy of Frazier's exact words was not was I was discussing...I was clearly saying he and Barry were misconstruing his words and there was good evidence to prove it...We can assume that Alan's shameful attempt to avoid addressing that evidence is a tacit admission of its correctness and therefore dispense with the need of answering Alan's rank dishonesty...

The film evidence shows that Frazier did not have time to go to the bottom step and get back up without being seen in Darnell...Frazier's further words that Alan is deliberately ignoring prove that he was on the landing the whole time and never left it...If we follow Frazier's words with the accuracy Alan appeals to he clearly says that when he encountered Calvery's information at that step he immediately turned to Sarah to confront her on it...He couldn't have turned to Sarah immediately if he were on the bottom step...It is clear from Frazier's further words that Alan ignores that he was talking about the first step down from the landing...I think we can safely interpret Alan's sloppy ignoring of this as a tacit admission of its rightness...



 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 16, 2018, 05:35:30 PM

Which is exactly what Otis Williams, who was standing to the west of the entrance railing, also said.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the white/blonde haired woman identified as Sarah Stanton in a photo from 1962-4 could possibly be Prayer Person? Are you blind?

Of course no surprise at insults coming, again, from AlanFord.

You cannot place LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Elm St stairs/landing, in shadow, in the corner, as filmed at and/or very close to the time of the shooting that fatally wounded USP JohnKennedySr, and critically wounded TxG JohnConnallyJr.

For the record, I am not "telling" you anything. I have expressed my evidence/study/familiarity based conclusions about certain aspects of the events of 11/22/'63, through 11/24/'63.

As I can, and do, recall that weekend, that means familiarity exceeds 50 years.

 And, serious study exceeds 30 years.

But, I do not post and/or make statements about the event as if I were there and an eyewitness to the event itself, as well as an eyewitness to various statements/testimonial activities.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 05:38:03 PM

Of course no surprise at insults coming, again, from AlanFord.

You cannot place LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Elm St stairs/landing, in shadow, in the corner, as filmed at and/or very close to the time of the shooting that fatally wounded USP JohnKennedySr, and critically wounded TxG JohnConnallyJr.

For the record, I am not "telling" you anything. I have expressed my evidence/study/familiarity based conclusions about certain aspects of the events of 11/22/'63, through 11/24/'63.

As I can, and do, recall that weekend, that means familiarity exceeds 50 years.

 And, serious study exceeds 30 years.

But, I do not post and/or make statements about the event as if I were there and an eyewitness to the event itself, as well as an eyewitness to various statements/testimonial activities.


But you are an eyewitness to a photo of Sarah Stanton from 1962-4 and to the images of PrayerPerson in the Darnell film. Are you actually claiming that they could be one and the same person?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 16, 2018, 05:42:34 PM
you give a huge shot in the arm to the LHO=PM theory by uncovering Sarah Stanton's encounter with LHO near the second floor lunchroom which supports what Carolyn Arnold was telling people back in 1978.

Alan:  You are ignoring that Kamp and the main Prayer Man posters are saying Carolyn Arnold lied about seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...If you and Murphy say Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25 and Carolyn Arnold was telling the truth then you are on our side and backing what we are posting...You seem to be having difficulty honestly responding to the fact the current Kamp-led Prayer Man supporters, including DiEugenio, are saying Arnold lied...

You operate by the very dishonest method of shouted propaganda and obnoxious 'gotcha' points instead of practicing the more credible intelligent discussion of facts...You just outright ignore the fact that Jake Sykes' avatar makes it more than clear that Oswald, when overlain on to Prayer Man, only takes up about 2/3rd's of Prayer Man's girth and therefore refutes Oswald being Prayer Man in one single visual example...Prayer Man has Sarah's wide hips and anyone who denies that is either unskilled at photo analysis or lying...

Prayer Man is also Sarah Stanton's known 5 foot 5 in height...(Which Alan repeatedly ignores)





Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 16, 2018, 05:45:58 PM
Alan:  You are ignoring that Kamp and the main Prayer Man posters are saying...

Going to stop you there, Brian. As long as you continue to ignore the basic elements of the original PrayerMan theory you will remain uncredible on this topic. Stop fighting the straw man and start studying up!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 16, 2018, 05:48:57 PM

Thank you Alan...We'll take your inability to honestly answer the serious points of evidence I posted as to Frazier's location as the concession it is...

Alan publicly refuses to answer Frazier clearly gesturing to his right when talking about speaking to Sarah in Darnell because he knows it is sound and he can't refute it...It is so sound he is forced to ignore and troll it...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 16, 2018, 05:53:26 PM
Going to stop you there, Brian. As long as you continue to ignore the basic elements of the original PrayerMan theory you will remain uncredible on this topic. Stop fighting the straw man and start studying up!

You're a fraud Alan...You have proven that you are dishonestly trying to seize the narrative with trolling points in order to avoid answering good evidence you know refutes you...

You never took on the Prayer Man people to correct them on the accuracy of their entries towards the original theory...You're a fraud who is trying to divert the subject to cheap contrivances instead of honestly answering the germane points...You show a good example of how the Prayer Man nuttery came about and is currently being supported...DiEugenio has some serious answering to do...

What the Prayer Man people run from like the devil and refuse to answer is the fact Frazier more than clearly describes the TIMING of Calvery's coming to the steps saying the president has been shot...Couch/Darnell proves the timing seen in that clip is exactly at the moment Calvery has finished her run and would be exactly when Frazier was looking at Sarah...There is no doubt Couch/Darnell shows Prayer Man and Frazier facing and looking at each other so that makes Prayer Man Sarah by Frazier's own words... "So Sarah and I, the lady I was standing by up at the top step back in the shadows, we looked at each other"...
 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 16, 2018, 07:15:40 PM

I'll take this as a concession that you are unfamiliar with the original PrayerMan theory and, in your strange obsession with a number of individuals elsewhere, have spent the last ages fighting a complete straw man.

You have quite the knack for destroying your own theories. First you rule out Sarah Stanton as PM by publishing a 1962-4 photo of her. Then you give a huge shot in the arm to the LHO=PM theory by uncovering Sarah Stanton's encounter with LHO near the second floor lunchroom which supports what Carolyn Arnold was telling people back in 1978.

I am quite sure that BrianDoyle can speak for himself. But, I do have to ask, what is "the original PrayerMan theory", and what is it based on? And, what is "a complete straw man" that you say he is "fighting"? If seeking StrawMan, I have to conclude that there is no need to look any further than PrayerMan.

Just how is SarahDeanStanton "ruled out" as the person represented by PrayerPersonImage? Considering a time frame is stated of 1962-1964 for the published photograph of SarahDeanStanton and her son, LarryDaniel, has to indicate an estimate, even though it does not rule out Ms Stanton.

Certainly, the PrayerPersonImage as viewed appears to represent someone shorter and stockier than 5'9'' tall slightly built LeeHarveyOswald.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 16, 2018, 08:09:21 PM
But you are an eyewitness to a photo of Sarah Stanton from 1962-4 and to the images of PrayerPerson in the Darnell film. Are you actually claiming that they could be one and the same person?

It is beyond comprehension as to why AlanFord ::) needs to ask that BS: question.

I have concluded that PrayerPersonImage represents a female, then employed at the TSBD Building. And, most likely the PPI represents SarahDeanStanton.


If, in the unlikely event that LeeHarveyOswald is reliably proven to be the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, I will acknowledge reliable, provable, and admittedly strong merited evidence, if presented, and then remove myself from participation on this forum.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 17, 2018, 12:49:03 PM

It is beyond comprehension as to why AlanFord ::) needs to ask that BS: question.

I have concluded that PrayerPersonImage represents a female, then employed at the TSBD Building. And, most likely the PPI represents SarahDeanStanton.


If, in the unlikely event that LeeHarveyOswald is reliably proven to be the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, I will acknowledge reliable, provable, and admittedly strong merited evidence, if presented, and then remove myself from participation on this forum.


Frazier has been shown the Darnell still multiple times. Why has he not once even suggested it might be Sarah Stanton, a person he has been happy to mention elsewhere?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on June 17, 2018, 02:42:10 PM

Frazier has been shown the Darnell still multiple times. Why has he not once even suggested it might be Sarah Stanton, a person he has been happy to mention elsewhere?

IMHO, it was a dude taking pictures with a camera.  Sarah would certainly have shared those pictures with us by now.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 17, 2018, 05:28:16 PM
Frazier has been shown the Darnell still multiple times. Why has he not once even suggested it might be Sarah Stanton, a person he has been happy to mention elsewhere?


The Prayer Man cult has been getting away with murder for years by trying to force the issue to their disingenuous arguments...They have used mob-like domination practices to try to force the issue and the evidence to their dishonest terms...They openly, in public, ignore the best evidence, like Alan is doing here, yet while doing so not only demand equal say in the community, but controlling say where they block and ban and use dirty tactics and corrupted moderators to remove the opposition...Even with this clearly happening the bias is so bad that Jim DiEugenio actually has the nerve to say he has a philosophical dislike for people who try to force a one-sided view - the whole time he himself refuses to answer scientific evidence, has no public comments on his own Kennedy's And King website, and is approving of the censorship of the best and brightest while using personal defamation to justify it...No person who was seriously looking for the truth on the Prayer Man issue would make such obvious efforts to ignore what Frazier is saying in his 2013 interview, and no forcing of Frazier's inability or unwillingness to identify Prayer Man directly will get around that...It is plainly apparent to honest people that Alan is trying to force Frazier's lack of direct identification over what he knows he can't honestly answer and he shouldn't be allowed to do that...

The Prayer Man people know darned well that Frazier needs to be shown the entire evidence and the correct identification of Calvery in order to comprehensively ask him about Prayer Man in relation to this new understanding of the evidence...The Prayer Man people have poisoned and corrupted the credible research world by attacking this good evidence and anyone who was honestly looking at the evidence would see we have already proven Prayer Man is Stanton just from the evidence we have already shown...Frazier is clearly referencing looking at Sarah to absorb what Calvery had said and Couch/Darnell clearly shows him looking at the 5 foot 5 with wide hips Prayer Man at that moment...The Prayer Man people have destroyed the integrity and credibility of the assassination research world and they have done it with the bozo assistance of Jim DiEugenio, who should be made to pay the correct price...

When you post that Jake Sykes has refuted the Prayer Man theory by overlapping Oswald on to Prayer Man and showing Oswald is 2/3rd's as wide as Prayer Man Alan ignores it and returns to his canards and contrivances...

While Jim D once again exploits the political advantage of his biased mob no one on the Education Forum has the backbone or decency to ask him "Jim, didn't you post in public that when you first saw the Prayer Man image you thought the person in question was too stocky to be Oswald?"   

Jim, of course, while publicly complaining that he dislikes people who try to favor a one-sided view will do what he has done for several years now and ignore it...And the cult will let him...




Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 17, 2018, 06:24:25 PM
Can you explain the relevance, Barry?

Frazier's comment at around 5.29 in the video which you refer to is a conversation he had with Sarah BEFORE the assassination had started, which in my opinion is not relevant to the debated images of the Prayer Person's location which are scenes filmed AFTER the shooting has finished.
Or am I missing something?

To be more accurate, it's a conversation he claimed in that one video alone to have with Sarah, elsewhere he says something completely different.
I believe the assassination started for those near the steps the moment they were told JFK was hit, that's now apparently around 20s after the actual shooting, with BWF having to be told twice, so I guess if he actually said it,  it still works for me, there's a window there.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 17, 2018, 06:25:16 PM

The Prayer Man cult has been getting away with murder for years by trying to force the issue to their disingenuous arguments...They have used mob-like domination practices to try to force the issue and the evidence to their dishonest terms...They openly, in public, ignore the best evidence, like Alan is doing here, yet while doing so not only demand equal say in the community, but controlling say where they block and ban and use dirty tactics and corrupted moderators to remove the opposition...Even with this clearly happening the bias is so bad that Jim DiEugenio actually has the nerve to say he has a philosophical dislike for people who try to force a one-sided view - the whole time he himself refuses to answer scientific evidence, has no public comments on his own Kennedy's And King website, and is approving of the censorship of the best and brightest while using personal defamation to justify it...No person who was seriously looking for the truth on the Prayer Man issue would make such obvious efforts to ignore what Frazier is saying in his 2013 interview, and no forcing of Frazier's inability or unwillingness to identify Prayer Man directly will get around that...It is plainly apparent to honest people that Alan is trying to force Frazier's lack of direct identification over what he knows he can't honestly answer and he shouldn't be allowed to do that...

The Prayer Man people know darned well that Frazier needs to be shown the entire evidence and the correct identification of Calvery in order to comprehensively ask him about Prayer Man in relation to this new understanding of the evidence...The Prayer Man people have poisoned and corrupted the credible research world by attacking this good evidence and anyone who was honestly looking at the evidence would see we have already proven Prayer Man is Stanton just from the evidence we have already shown...Frazier is clearly referencing looking at Sarah to absorb what Calvery had said and Couch/Darnell clearly shows him looking at the 5 foot 5 with wide hips Prayer Man at that moment...The Prayer Man people have destroyed the integrity and credibility of the assassination research world and they have done it with the bozo assistance of Jim DiEugenio, who should be made to pay the correct price...

When you post that Jake Sykes has refuted the Prayer Man theory by overlapping Oswald on to Prayer Man and showing Oswald is 2/3rd's as wide as Prayer Man Alan ignores it and returns to his canards and contrivances...

While Jim D once again exploits the political advantage of his biased mob no one on the Education Forum has the backbone or decency to ask him "Jim, didn't you post in public that when you first saw the Prayer Man image you thought the person in question was too stocky to be Oswald?"   

Jim, of course, while publicly complaining that he dislikes people who try to favor a one-sided view will do what he has done for several years now and ignore it...And the cult will let him...

Another angry off-topic rant that evades the question. Frazier knows that the Darnell film shows the Depository doorway just after the shooting. He also clearly remembers that Sarah Stanton was by him during this time. Yes not once has he even suggested that PrayerPerson might be her. Why not?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 17, 2018, 06:33:12 PM
Anyone who thinks Alan Ford and Bart Kamp aren't already aware that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton is a fool...

Stanton was pretty large...Alan hasn't offered where he thinks Sarah and her large body are if not in the position where Sykes has already proven a person with hips 1/3rd wider than Oswald's is...

Stanton's grand daughter:  " Yes, I agree Brian...Prayer Man has to be my grand mother because all the other people on the steps are too small to be her. "

Alan agrees with me that Carolyn Arnold's witnessing is real and Oswald was in the lunch room at 12:25...That makes it highly unlikely Oswald was on the front steps during the shooting...Not only is there not enough time for Oswald to get back to the lunch room to be seen by Baker but he wasn't out of breath...If Baker & Truly were fabricating their witnessing they would hardly undermine it by adding the detail that Oswald wasn't out of breath...And now Sarah Stanton adds the detail that Oswald had a soda - which puts him even deeper in to the lunch room...



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 17, 2018, 06:41:09 PM
Let's be fair to ourselves at least, "we" only recognised Frazier from his hairline and then it all fell into place and apparently so did he, there's only one frame that shows it well, so like us he needed to see that good one, the person to his left could hardly be recognised visually in the same way but PM should be doable once you find the right person and I'm convinced it's going to have to look wee bit like Oswald whoever it is.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 17, 2018, 06:45:04 PM
Let's be fair to ourselves at least, "we" only recognised Frazier from his hairline and then it all fell into place and apparently so did he, there's only one frame that shows it well, so like us he needed to see that good one, the person to his left could hardly be recognised visually in the same way but PM should be doable once you find the right person and I'm convinced it's going to have to look wee bit like Oswald whoever it is.

To me this is just outright contempt right in the face of Jake Sykes' avatar that shows an overlapping of Oswald on to Prayer Man...That overlapping confirms what Jim DiEugenio noted... That Prayer Man was way too stocky to be Oswald...

In my opinion, ignoring this in public is a sheer act of willful dishonesty...Not to mention Prayer Man being Sarah Stanton's confirmed 5 foot 5 height...

No serious researcher questions the identity of Buell Frazier in Darnell...


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 17, 2018, 06:53:00 PM

...And now Sarah Stanton adds the detail that Oswald had a soda - which puts him even deeper in to the lunch room...

You mean Wilma Stanton via yourself, that's who you claim you heard it from, did she write it in a diary or are you satisfied with this just pure 100% hearsay after she was told "that's your mother on the steps"(or should I say landing? Perhaps you can get Wilma opinion on this too?).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 17, 2018, 06:55:33 PM
To me this is just outright contempt right in the face of Jake Sykes' avatar that shows an overlapping of Oswald on to Prayer Man...That overlapping confirms what Jim DiEugenio noted... That Prayer Man was way too stocky to be Oswald...

In my opinion, ignoring this in public is a sheer act of willful dishonesty...Not to mention Prayer Man being Sarah Stanton's confirmed 5 foot 5 height...

No serious researcher questions the identity of Buell Frazier in Darnell...

Perhaps if you shared it then I could see it. Where is it?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 17, 2018, 06:57:13 PM
Better still,

Perhaps Brian, you could invite her to join this Forum to verify your claims.
What do you say, she would be most welcome here.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 17, 2018, 06:58:47 PM
Alan agrees with me that Carolyn Arnold's witnessing is real and Oswald was in the lunch room at 12:25...That makes it highly unlikely Oswald was on the front steps during the shooting...Not only is there not enough time for Oswald to get back to the lunch room to be seen by Baker but he wasn't out of breath...If Baker & Truly were fabricating their witnessing they would hardly undermine it by adding the detail that Oswald wasn't out of breath...And now Sarah Stanton adds the detail that Oswald had a soda - which puts him even deeper in to the lunch room...


Again you're just showing your ignorance of the very theory you've devoted your best energies to fighting. According to said theory, LHO told Will Fritz the TRUTH when he said he visited the second floor lunchroom to buy a coke for his lunch and then came down to the first floor. He was there (out with Bill Shelley in front) for the shooting and never went back up to the second floor. Baker encountered him at or near the first floor entrance and the second floor story is a bunch of hooey fabricated to put LHO near the rear stairs. Baker and Truly said LHO wasn't out of breath or sweating to get themselves (Baker esp) off the hook for having 'let him loose'.

Stop showing how uncredible you are. Stop exposing your lack of basic research skills. Do your godd-mn homework, man!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 17, 2018, 07:01:11 PM
Better still,

Perhaps Brian, you could invite her to join this Forum to verify your claims.
What do you say, she would be most welcome here.



 Thumb1:
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 17, 2018, 07:15:05 PM
Alan is lying when he says Oswald claimed he was out front with Shelley during the shots...What Oswald claimed was he was in the 2nd floor lunch room when officer came in...The Fritz notes are written chronologically...Ford and the Prayer Man nuts know this, only they lie and need to bend testimony to make their fantasy work...No witness ever saw Oswald outside with Shelley either during or after the shots and if you apply intelligent analysis to Alan's input here Altgens shows Shelley during the shots and Oswald is not next to him...That means Oswald is over in the Prayer Man corner if he is theoretically there...Only if we go to Lovelady's testimony he describes the persons in those positions as being Shelley, Frazier, and Sarah Stanton from his left to his right - placing Stanton in the Prayer Man spot...

This false rendering of evidence originates from Greg Parker and his over-active imagination and nutty evidence hacking...

Alan and Barry:   Do you think the person Bart Kamp has selected to be Stanton is her?

Alan seems to be having a problem responding to the Jake Sykes avatar that debunks the Prayer Man theory in a glance...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 17, 2018, 07:25:04 PM
You are deliberately not answering the rest of what I said...You're not credible...

Frazier did not have time to make that trip and get back up to the landing in Darnell...

Yes, a different scene than what Darnell shows...You Prayer Man crazies are so divorced from reality, and so self-deluded by your lies, that you make fools of yourselves by not realizing that YES the Darnell film shows reality and proves my point...That Frazier isn't seen going back up to the landing like would be required if he had walked down to the bottom step...Your logic is so perverted that you strongly make my point for me yet phrase it as if it backed you...

The "first step" Frazier is referencing is the first step down from the landing...You are deliberately ignoring that the video shows Frazier saying he immediately looked at Sarah after hearing this from Calvery...If Frazier was at the bottom step he couldn't immediately turn to Sarah like he says...He would have had to walk back up to the landing to do so...

You and Barry use references to Frazier's actions in the video to make your bogus points but ignore those same clear actions when they prove what I am saying...

Twice now you have avoided addressing how Frazier nods to his right and shifts his eyes rightward when referring to Sarah...

Brian and Alan,
there's a confusion here, the short film that Brian linked to only refers to what Frasier said and what he said has then been used to conclude that PM=SS, with no explaination, no nod to the evidence and no alternative, just a complete leap of faith and Brian claims gameover. All based on what Buell said, nothing else. Now I was hoping someone would notice later on that Buell does indeed turn to his RIGHT when again mentioning Sarah, the first comment under the video led me right to it but Alan is correct and he actually says he was "right down, by the first step" how can that be confused with the what we know as the top step? What is seen in the films is irrelevant to this, it's only about what he said and we know what he meant, it's so clear a five year old would know he meant the bottom.

Calvery he did not know by name at the time, more than one woman ran from that horrific scene and many worked at that building, so aside from Calvery are we to conclude that eveyone else came back and couldn't speak? Buell could be talking about someone other than Calvery or even more than one woman with memory confusing the two.
One minute you bet the house on one little thing the man said, the next you're claiming he can't be correct because your interpretation of the film says it happened only one way. Yorway or dahiway.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 17, 2018, 07:36:04 PM

Alan is lying when he says Oswald claimed he was out front with Shelley during the shots...What Oswald claimed was he was in the 2nd floor lunch room when officer came in...The Fritz notes are written chronologically...Ford and the Prayer Man nuts know this, only they lie and need to bend testimony to make their fantasy work...No witness ever saw Oswald outside with Shelley either during or after the shots and if you apply intelligent analysis to Alan's input here Altgens shows Shelley during the shots and Oswald is not next to him...That means Oswald is over in the Prayer Man corner if he is theoretically there...Only if we go to Lovelady's testimony he describes the persons in those positions as being Shelley, Frazier, and Sarah Stanton from his left to his right - placing Stanton in the Prayer Man spot...

This false rendering of evidence originates from Greg Parker and his over-active imagination and nutty evidence hacking...

More lack of basic understanding skills from Brian Doyle. Quelle surprise!

1. LHO DID claim to be on the first floor when the President passed the building (read the d-mn interrogation reports, Brian)
2. The Fritz notes were copied by Fritz from an FBI agent's contemporaneous notes
3. The two FBI agents' first report on LHO's interrogation said nothing about a police officer coming into the lunchroom
4. There was no way in hell Billy Lovelady was going to admit to seeing LHO behind him (if indeed he did notice him)
5. Sarah Stanton was on the east side of the steps in a cluster with Pauline Sanders and Otis Williams
6. You yourself have ruled out Sarah Stanton as PrayerPerson by sharing the 1962-4 photo of her


My advice to you, Brian, is stop thinking like a LNer and start opening your mind to the possibility that the story you've been hypnotised into believing about a second floor lunchroom encounter belongs on the fiction shelf. Drop your utterly tedious grievance campaign against researchers on other forums. And take pride in the fact that your own recent work on Sarah Stanton means that you've done more than most to consolidate the LHO=PM theory Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 17, 2018, 07:39:14 PM
Brian and Alan,
there's a confusion here, the short film that Brian linked to only refers to what Frasier said and what he said has then been used to conclude that PM=SS, with no explaination, no nod to the evidence and no alternative, just a complete leap of faith and Brian claims gameover. All based on what Buell said, nothing else. Now I was hoping someone would notice later on that Buell does indeed turn to his RIGHT when again mentioning Sarah, the first comment under the video led me right to it but Alan is correct and he actually says he was "right down, by the first step" how can that be confused with the what we know as the top step? What is seen in the films is irrelevant to this, it's only about what he said and we know what he meant, it's so clear a five year old would know he meant the bottom.

Calvery he did not know by name at the time, more than one woman ran from that horrific scene and many worked at that building, so aside from Calvery are we to conclude that eveyone else came back and couldn't speak? Buell could be talking about someone other than Calvery or even more than one woman with memory confusing the two.
One minute you bet the house on one little thing the man said, the next you're claiming he can't be correct because your interpretation of the film says it happened only one way. Yorway or dahiway.

Exactly Barry. Frazier's repeated lefthand gesture when mentioning Sarah beside him is an involuntary indication of where he remembers her having been as the limo came onto Elm Street. This tallies of course with where Pauline Sanders places Sarah (and herself) = east of the railing.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 17, 2018, 07:42:32 PM
Alan is correct and he actually says he was "right down, by the first step" how can that be confused with the what we know as the top step? What is seen in the films is irrelevant to this, it's only about what he said and we know what he meant, it's so clear a five year old would know he meant the bottom.


Barry:   I suspect that you are offering what you know to be insincere entries in order to obnoxiously screw up the dialogue that is occurring in this thread...What makes me suspect that is I have already explained what you are asking here in clear detail yet you are pretending I haven't and are asking for an explanation of something that has already been explained...In the general internet world that kind of deliberately insincere input is generally categorized as "trolling" and I will not abide or respond to either it or its issuer for reasons I should not have to explain...

I have already explained that Frazier cannot be down on the bottom step because if you pay attention to his description of hearing Calvery he says he then looked at Sarah immediately upon hearing this...If Frazier was on the bottom step he couldn't have immediately looked at Sarah who was back up on the landing...I thank Barry for trolling this because if he hadn't I never would have examined it and realized how it works in my favor...There's a particular type of poetic justice when people who are disingenuously looking for specks unintentionally provide you the evidence to refute them...

Further examination of Frazier's statement shows that he was about to say Calvery was "down" the sidewalk...What Frazier did was say "down" when referring to 'forward' on the landing because he had it in his head and misspoke...It is more than clear that Frazier meant he was standing by the first step down at the edge of the landing...

Why? Because the film evidence shows Frazier didn't have enough time to go to the bottom step and get back to the landing by the time of the Couch/Darnell film...Barry knows this which is why he tries to say the film evidence is irrelevant when in fact the film evidence is the most relevant because it shows reality...

The Prayer Man people got caught trying to use a speck to ignore the overwhelming evidence...When it blew up on them they went to their usual trolling to avoid admitting it...


 

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 17, 2018, 07:46:59 PM

Most smart people will understand that Alan's contemptuous refusal to answer the simple visual proof of Jake Sykes' avatar that proves Oswald is too thin to be Prayer Man is the conclusive proof that it is...

I love it when the Prayer Man people provide you the evidence that wins it for you like Sykes and DiEugenio did...

And we haven't even touched the Davidson enhancement...The Education Forum is a very honest and honorable site where Jim D defames me while flagrantly ignoring evidence and Chris Davidson stays quiet, even though he publicly claimed his enhancement showed the face of a woman and had the metadata to back it up...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 17, 2018, 07:48:09 PM

Alan and Barry:   Do you think the person Bart Kamp has selected to be Stanton is her?

Alan seems to be having a problem responding to the Jake Sykes avatar that debunks the Prayer Man theory in a glance...

No of course not, not from that evidence but you know, she has to be somewhere.
Is the avatar on the EF now?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 17, 2018, 07:51:01 PM
No of course not, not from that evidence but you know, she has to be somewhere.
Is the avatar on the EF now?


Somewhere you can't show...

Yes - It is Sykes' current avatar...But it is on ROKC and not the Education Forum...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 17, 2018, 08:00:54 PM
Okay, Brian so he didn't go down the steps before Darnell, like we need to be told but don't you see what's happened to you? Because of this scenraio you've come to rely on so much you cannot even hear him say it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 17, 2018, 08:02:33 PM
Ok ty I got it delete it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 17, 2018, 08:06:48 PM
(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)

I really do find this image curious. If this is a person with their body turned a bit to the left (=southeast) then why are we seeing so much of the radiator behind the glass? I mean, nothing of the left leg...?! Just seems kind of off to me, like the lower body just curves away from under them...

Also the person's left hand/elbow seems unattached to an upper arm, as if it's hanging in midair or something...


Add the fact that the white of the neck is not below the chin and the thing just looks very odd indeed.


However if you stick a finger over the supposed 'left arm' it makes a new kind of sense as a man whose body is facing forward, whose arms are folded and whose head is turned a little to the left (=southeast).


I wonder might the drinking/eating/etc PrayerPerson in Wiegman have changed their posture by the time Darnell films them?
 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 17, 2018, 08:53:47 PM
(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)

I really do find this image curious. If this is a person with their body turned a bit to the left (=southeast) then why are we seeing so much of the radiator behind the glass? I mean, nothing of the left leg...?! Just seems kind of off to me.


It is very common for the Prayer Man backers to come in and accidentally acknowledge the obvious, not realizing that they are refuting their own theory in the process...Alan is correct here...What you see next to Prayer Man's dress in that image is the white of the radiator, which proves it can't be the bent left leg Andrej Stancak requires to make his bogus foot on the step claim work...Very simply, if Oswald had dark trousers on then you wouldn't be able to see any white in that spot...The white you see is the radiator, which in turn proves that Oswald's leg can't be bent in front of it, which in turn proves that Prayer Man is up on the landing...

Andrej Stancak posted on the Education Forum "If Prayer Man is on the landing then he is too short to be Oswald"...Well, this proves Prayer Man is on the landing...Andrej is offering garbage science that tries to bend the evidence towards Oswald...A correct measuring of Prayer Man when compared to Frazier shows Prayer Man to be 5 foot 5 in height...That just so happens to be Sarah Stanton's height...

Thanks Alan...Like with Carolyn Arnold you are once again agreeing with me on a very important point of evidence...
 



Also the person's left hand/elbow seems unattached to an upper arm, as if it's hanging in midair or something...


Left arm and hand looking down it length-wise...I have been repeating this for years and it gets ignored...Thank you for once again agreeing with me that it isn't ROKC's ridiculous folded arms...By the way anatomy proves that Sarah's purse is jutting in front of her right wrist because a wrist can't narrow as much as you see Prayer Man's doing when compared to the hand...

Sarah is holding her purse in front of her with both hands...


But if you stick a finger over the supposed 'left arm' it makes a new kind of sense as a man whose body is facing forward, whose arms are folded and whose head is turned a little to the left (=southeast).


Which, according to sound photo science, is the definition of cheating to make your claims work...

Sarah is facing Frazier in the image in order to react to Calvery...
 
Prayer Man can't have his arms folded because his upper left arm would be too short by anatomy...You couldn't hide his hands either that are missing if you try to make that work...


I wonder might the drinking/eating/etc PrayerPerson in Wiegman have changed their posture by the time Darnell films them?


 Absolutely...Sarah has pivoted from facing forward on the landing in Wiegman to turning towards Frazier to discuss what Calvery said...This was easily seen in the stabilized clip of all Prayer Man images in Wiegman and Darnell that was previously posted on this site...(and ignored)


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 17, 2018, 10:16:17 PM
(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)

Running with the idea that this is a man whose body is facing forward, shirtsleeves rolled up, arms folded, head turned a bit to the left...

How do we account for the visibility of the top of the radiator? Why does the man's untucked shirt seem to taper off at the bottom right (our right, that is)?

This is where it gets kind of interesting. A couple of years ago a researcher called Pat Speer got superb color photos of CE151 which many believe was the shirt Oswald wore to work that day. And guess what? It's cut in a curving pattern at the bottom sides. (Go to about a third of the way down the page at http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence?tmpl=%2Fsystem%2Fapp%2Ftemplates%2Fprint%2F&showPrintDialog=1 (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence?tmpl=%2Fsystem%2Fapp%2Ftemplates%2Fprint%2F&showPrintDialog=1) and see for yourself)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 17, 2018, 10:39:11 PM
Running with the idea that this is a man whose body is facing forward, shirtsleeves rolled up, arms folded, head turned a bit to the left...


Impossible by anatomy...Left upper arm too short for folded arms...You have no right to ignore the clearly see left arm/hand in the image...I've repeatedly explained to Parker that the left arm is not a reflection...If it were a reflection then the left cheek skin (which is even more apparent and has more surface area) would also reflect, yet we see no such reflection...



How do we account for the visibility of the top of the radiator? Why does the man's untucked shirt seem to taper off at the bottom right (our right, that is)?


       There is no way that any School Book Depository employee would stand in front of a presidential motorcade with his shirt hanging out...What you are correctly registering is Sarah's wide dress...

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 17, 2018, 10:53:52 PM
(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)

I really do find this image curious. If this is a person with their body turned a bit to the left (=southeast) then why are we seeing so much of the radiator behind the glass? I mean, nothing of the left leg...?! Just seems kind of off to me, like the lower body just curves away from under them...

Also the person's left hand/elbow seems unattached to an upper arm, as if it's hanging in midair or something...


Add the fact that the white of the neck is not below the chin and the thing just looks very odd indeed.


However if you stick a finger over the supposed 'left arm' it makes a new kind of sense as a man whose body is facing forward, whose arms are folded and whose head is turned a little to the left (=southeast).


I wonder might the drinking/eating/etc PrayerPerson in Wiegman have changed their posture by the time Darnell films them?

Admittedly, my take on what the posted image represents tends to differ somewhat than others. And, an intelligent, unfortunately now former, forum friend convinced me that photograph/film presents images of persons/objects, and not the actual person/object. For that reason, I tend to base image identification efforts upon that premise. That said, all images require interpretation, and sometimes image identification/interpretation is easily done, but sometimes not.

The posted image of the TexasSchoolBookDepository Elm St entrance appears to represent the scene within about one minute after the DealeyPlazaShooting that fatally wounded USP JohnKennedySr, and critically wounded TxG JohnConnallyJr, on 11/22/'63.

After reviewing statements/testimony by multiple eyewitnesses/occupants that indicated their presence on the stairs/landing at the time, I had to conclude that the aka PrayerPersonImage represents a female, most likely then TSBD Bldg employee SarahStanton. And, the same testimony indicates that LeeOswald is/was not among the landing/stairs occupants as filmed and/or during the shooting occurrence.

When viewing the PrayerPersonImage, it appears to represent someone stockier built and not as tall as LeeOswald. and, the person represented appears to be wearing a dress and/or long coat. Also, it is my interpretation that the person represented was filmed/photographed during a head turn due to conversation with another occupant relating to what had been witnessed by a returning area occupant. And, their is supporting testimony regarding said conversation..

 So, considering eyewitness testimony provides evidence that LeeOswald was not among the entrance landing/stairway at the time, and no reliable evidence places him there, for me it is a quite simple conclusion to reach that "evidently" he was not there.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 01:07:36 AM
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Prayerstable.gif)

Care has to be taken when drawing conclusions from this gif (which Duncan posted) about what can be seen at the level of the top landing. This is because of the really frustrating fact that in the first few frames the (elderly?) woman wearing black coat and black scarf just in front of the steps is blocking the area of interest beneath PrayerPerson's body. We think we're getting a glimpse of the landing but that's only because the woman's neckline is at a height (for camera angle) on a level with the landing. After that of course the lady in white going up the steps blocks our view further.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 18, 2018, 03:58:21 AM
 Telephone interview with Sarah Stanton's grand daughter and daughter in law...In it the grand daughter confirms her grand mother is Prayer Man...The daughter in law reveals an important new witnessing of Oswald being near the lunch room around the time of the shooting...The daughter in law confirms that Sarah asked Oswald "Are you going downstairs to go see the motorcade?" "Downstairs" had to be from the 2nd floor lunch room stairway landing:



             
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 11:04:05 AM
Telephone interview with Sarah Stanton's grand daughter and daughter in law...In it the grand daughter confirms her grand mother is Prayer Man...The daughter in law reveals an important new witnessing of Oswald being near the lunch room around the time of the shooting...The daughter in law confirms that Sarah asked Oswald "Are you going downstairs to go see the motorcade?" "Downstairs" had to be from the 2nd floor lunch room stairway landing:



Thank you for posting this audio in full, Brian. I hope everyone here listens to it for it offers a truly shocking case study in how not to interview a witness.

You start by informing Sarah Stanton's sister-in-law that Sarah has been identified beyond doubt as PrayerPerson and then at repeated points throughout the interview feed her a relentless series of none too subtle cues as to the answers you wish to elicit from her. Anytime she says something you don't like, you telegraph your displeasure with a sceptical drawl of 'Alright, yeah...' and/or a correction based on your superior knowledge. Unfortunately for you, she just doesn't play ball. And that matters, because she (unlike Sarah's granddaughter) has primary memories of Sarah from the time of the assassination and they simply don't tally with the PrayerPerson image. Most damningly, Sarah Stanton had gray hair in 1963. PrayerPerson clearly doesn't. Sarah Stanton is not PrayerPerson. Period.

Another amusing point to emerge is that Sarah's granddaughter's sole reason for thinking PrayerPerson is Sarah is that you have shown her the Darnell frame and she, not being familiar with the crowded scene in Wiegman or with the fact that Pauline Sanders places Sarah beside her on the east side of the entrance, has identified her as the only large woman on the landing at the time of the shooting and therefore Sarah. Worthless.

And through it all you repeatedly inform both these women that the identification of Sarah as PrayerPerson is already a done deal!

It's worth mentioning that Sarah's sister-in-law includes a key detail that you have strangely omitted from your summary: when Sarah asked LHO near the second floor lunchroom if he was going down to watch the motorcade he told her that no, he was going back upstairs to the floor he had just been working on. 

You believe he stayed in the second floor lunchroom and went neither up nor down, I believe he changed his mind about going back upstairs and decided to go down to the front entrance for a look. But neither of us has the right to wish away what Sarah's sister-in-law says she heard from Sarah's own lips.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 18, 2018, 02:18:15 PM

Prayer Man cultist Alan is desperately going to bend this anyway he can to steer it away from the obvious...My earbud microphone and the children in the background kept me from fully absorbing what the daughter in law was saying...Around 6 minutes the daughter in law adds that Oswald told Sarah he was going back into the room...I wish I had caught that during the interview because it seems obvious to me that Oswald told Sarah he wasn't eating lunch but was going back in to the (break) room or 2nd floor lunch room that Sarah had obviously caught him in front of on the 2nd floor stairway landing as she was leaving the offices to go outside...Despite Alan's crass denial, at least he is conceding that this encounter happened in that location...The grand daughter told me by private message that she thought Sarah said she encountered Oswald in a break room...

Because of the difficulty of the conversation and medium I really should have commented to them that if Sarah was regularly recounting her witnessing Oswald by the stairs with a Coke on the way out of the building that she almost certainly volunteered this to the FBI in her interview since she would have no reason not to...The problem with people like Alan and their Prayer Man poison is they enter an excluding logic that is damaging to the normal thinking and follow-through that is usually practiced in good criminal detection...If you want to see a prime example of how not to process important evidence just look at what Alan offers...A person who really respected his readers and cared about correct interpretation would realize what we really have here is another proven case of FBI omitting important witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room due to their awareness of its threat to the official story...This bolsters the veracity of Carolyn Arnold's witnessing of Oswald being in the lunch room because just like Sarah, they omitted Carolyn's witnessing in an identical manner...

I was slow on the uptake and response during this interview and upon re-listening and a night's sleep I realize at 13 minutes I should have told the daughter in law that Sarah's assuming Oswald had "gone back up by then" is the presumption of a person who did not see Oswald actually go back upstairs but just assumed he did after hearing the official story...It didn't dawn on me during the interview that the daughter in law's problematic wanting to send Oswald back upstairs almost certainly originates from Sarah's assumption that Oswald shot from the 6th floor and her incorporation of that in to her story...Sarah never saw where Oswald went after she left him on the stairway landing...

At 20:00 minutes the grand daughter confirms that she thought the woman's face in Davidson was "too pretty to be Sarah"...I had previously shown her the Davidson enhancement in e-mails...The interview had gotten a little off track at that point over the discussion of Sarah's weight...After confirming that she thought Davidson showed a woman the grand daughter then refers to Darnell and says there's no doubt the woman in Darnell is obese like Sarah..."Everybody is skinny in this except for her"...

If you look at the family photo I think Sarah is on a slope so therefore appears taller in comparison to the 6 foot 1 Larry her son...

The Prayer Man cult deliberately ignores how the daughter in law's strong memory of Sarah saying Oswald had a soda vastly increases the veracity of Jeraldean Reid and her witnessing...Please tell us again, Mr DiEugenio, how Baker crossed-out the Coke on his statement...And anybody who shows otherwise will be attacked, personally defamed in a low manner, and removed from the community...

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 02:34:40 PM
Prayer Man cultist Alan is desperately going to bend this anyway he can to steer it away from the obvious...My earbud microphone and the children in the background kept me from fully absorbing what the daughter in law was saying...Around 6 minutes the daughter in law adds that Oswald told Sarah he was going back into the room...I wish I had caught that during the interview because it seems obvious to me that Oswald told Sarah he wasn't eating lunch but was going back in to the (break) room or 2nd floor lunch room that Sarah had obviously caught him in front of on the 2nd floor stairway landing as she was leaving the offices to go outside...Despite Alan's crass denial, at least he is conceding that this encounter happened in that location...The grand daughter told me by private message that she thought Sarah said she encountered Oswald in a break room...

Because of the difficulty of the conversation and medium I really should have commented to them that if Sarah was regularly recounting her witnessing Oswald by the stairs with a Coke on the way out of the building that she almost certainly volunteered this to the FBI in her interview since she would have no reason not to...The problem with people like Alan and their Prayer Man poison is they enter an excluding logic that is damaging to the normal thinking and follow-through that is usually practiced in good criminal detection...If you want to see a prime example of how not to process important evidence just look at what Alan offers...A person who really respected his readers and cared about correct interpretation would realize what we really have here is another proven case of FBI omitting important witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room due to their awareness of its threat to the official story...This bolsters the veracity of Carolyn Arnold's witnessing of Oswald being in the lunch room because just like Sarah, they omitted Carolyn's witnessing in an identical manner...

I was slow on the uptake and response during this interview and upon re-listening and a night's sleep I realize at 13 minutes I should have told the daughter in law that Sarah's assuming Oswald had "gone back up by then" is the presumption of a person who did not see Oswald actually go back upstairs but just assumed he did after hearing the official story...It didn't dawn on me during the interview that the daughter in law's problematic wanting to send Oswald back upstairs almost certainly originates from Sarah's assumption that Oswald shot from the 6th floor and her incorporation of that in to her story...Sarah never saw where Oswald went after she left him on the stairway landing...

At 20:00 minutes the grand daughter confirms that she thought the woman's face in Davidson was "too pretty to be Sarah"...I had previously shown her the Davidson enhancement in e-mails...The interview had gotten a little off track at that point over the discussion of Sarah's weight...After confirming that she thought Davidson showed a woman the grand daughter then refers to Darnell and says there's no doubt the woman in Darnell is obese like Sarah..."Everybody is skinny in this except for her"...

If you look at the family photo I think Sarah is on a slope so therefore appears taller in comparison to the 6 foot 1 Larry her son...

The Prayer Man cult deliberately ignores how the daughter in law's strong memory of Sarah saying Oswald had a soda vastly increases the veracity of Jeraldean Reid and her witnessing...Please tell us again, Mr DiEugenio, how Baker crossed-out the Coke on his statement...And anybody who shows otherwise will be attacked, personally defamed in a low manner, and removed from the community...

! Not a single word about the elephant in the room: Sarah Stanton had GRAY HAIR, PrayerPerson doesn't. Therefore Sarah Stanton cannot be PrayerPerson. Game over.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 18, 2018, 03:00:03 PM


If you look at a close up of Prayer Man the folded arms claim is impossible by human anatomy...Greg Parker is a quack and incompetent...The folded arms claim comes from Greg looking at images and imagining things into them...

Meanwhile credible photo analysis would quickly show the left elbow and forearm of the imaginary folded arms tapers in a way that is impossible for human anatomy...An elbow cannot go from thick to skinny like the left arm on their folded arms does...You also can't hide hands like their folded arms require...Folded arms don't just cut-off like those the Prayer Man people are claiming...You would have to see a hand on their right arm but all you see is a suddenly cut off forearm...This is very sloppy photo analysis and laughable at a professional level...

When I show that Prayer Man's right wrist narrows beyond human anatomy it gets ignored...A wrist cannot go from thick to thin as much as Prayer Man's wrist does...What you are seeing there is Sarah Stanton's purse that her daughter in law said she carried jutting in front of her wrist...If it wasn't there you would clearly see Sarah's obese forearm going all the way to her hand and matching her fat forearm seen in the family photo...

This is the correct interpretation of Prayer Man's arm but it gets outright ignored by the Prayer Man cultists...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 03:06:28 PM

If you look at a close up of Prayer Man the folded arms claim is impossible by human anatomy...Greg Parker is a quack and incompetent...The folded arms claim comes from Greg looking at images and imagining things into them...

Meanwhile credible photo analysis would quickly show the left elbow and forearm of the imaginary folded arms tapers in a way that is impossible for human anatomy...An elbow cannot go from thick to skinny like the left arm on their folded arms does...You also can't hide hands like their folded arms require...Folded arms don't just cut-off like those the Prayer Man people are claiming...You would have to see a hand on their right arm but all you see is a suddenly cut off forearm...This is very sloppy photo analysis and laughable at a professional level...

When I show that Prayer Man's right wrist narrows beyond human anatomy it gets ignored...A wrist cannot go from thick to thin as much as Prayer Man's wrist does...What you are seeing there is Sarah Stanton's purse that her daughter in law said she carried jutting in front of her wrist...If it wasn't there you would clearly see Sarah's obese forearm going all the way to her hand and matching her fat forearm seen in the family photo...

This is the correct interpretation of Prayer Man's arm but it gets outright ignored by the Prayer Man cultists...

Repeat after me, Brian: Sarah Stanton had gray hair. Prayer Person doesn't.

We know you know what a disaster this is to your theory because you even tried, without any success, to coax Sarah's sister-in-law into saying that Sarah dyed her hair in 1963!

Sarah Stanton had gray hair. Prayer Person doesn't.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 18, 2018, 03:14:28 PM
Sarah Stanton had gray hair. Prayer Person doesn't.
So, what colour was Prayer Person's hair?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 03:18:23 PM
So, what colour was Prayer Person's hair?

A lot darker than the gray or white we see in the photo of Sarah Stanton. The contrast between PrayerPerson's skin and hair is obvious. A pale complected person with dark or darkish hair.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Frederick Clements on June 18, 2018, 03:22:14 PM
If only there were better quality images there would be no need for this discussion. A high resolution scan from the original footage would show who that figure is.

Fred
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 18, 2018, 05:47:36 PM
It is possible Sarah wore a wig or dyed her hair...That would make sense in a professional situation...Alan is trying to avoid all the other evidence and his trying to resolve the issue on the grey hair alone is not strong enough to overturn the layers of repeating evidence he is obviously dodging...

Wanda told me Sarah did not like to be photographed so I don't know if there are any other photos from the Depository to help solve the hair issue...

The timing of Calvery as spoken by Frazier clinches it...Frazier is facing and talking with Prayer Man in Couch/Darnell at a time where he has made clear that he was talking to Sarah...

Parker is over on my Facebook Prayer Woman page desperately trying to say the extra girth on Prayer Man is from a reflection in the glass...He ignores that if there was a reflection the cheek would have to reflect too...It doesn't...

The Clockwork Orange trolls who have seized this issue are Jim DiEugenio's fault and he should be made to pay a price for their being unleashed on the credible assassination community...

He is responsible for serious evidence that backs up Carolyn Arnold and Jeraldean Reid being deliberately ignored by the JFK research community for juvenile reasons of spite and egotism...

Kamp is over on ROKC bragging that him and his group dictate what is allowed to be posted and where on this issue...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 05:50:55 PM

 It is possible Sarah wore a wig or dyed her hair...That would make sense in a professional situation...


 :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 18, 2018, 06:28:46 PM
So, what date is this photograph of Sarah Stanton? There doesn't appear to be a definitive answer on the Audio discussion.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Sarah Stanton.jpg)


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 18, 2018, 06:57:24 PM

In private messages the grand daughter put it at "1962 to 1964"...

Debra Conway agrees with me that the JFK research community's response to this important new evidence shows a serious credibility problem occurring amongst it...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 07:00:59 PM
So, what date is this photograph of Sarah Stanton? There doesn't appear to be a definitive answer on the Audio discussion.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Sarah Stanton.jpg)

Sarah's granddaughter estimates 1962-4, her daughter-in-law 1960 (because she remembers Sarah as significantly larger by the time she first met her in March 1963). The daughter-in-law states quite categorically that Sarah's hair was gray/white in 1963 and that no, she didn't dye it. This puts the issue beyond doubt: Sarah Stanton is not PrayerPerson.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 18, 2018, 08:01:44 PM
The daughter-in-law states quite categorically that Sarah's hair was gray/white in 1963 and that no, she didn't dye it. This puts the issue beyond doubt: Sarah Stanton is not PrayerPerson.

Not quite Alan, If it was indeed grey,  there are many shades of grey which could easily match Prayer Person standing in the shadows.  :)

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/46/6c/5b/466c5bc9e56fdadcd5f10f7328e48cd2.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 08:06:42 PM
Not quite Alan, If it was indeed grey, andthere are many shades of grey.

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/46/6c/5b/466c5bc9e56fdadcd5f10f7328e48cd2.jpg)

No need for color charts, Duncan, just look at the photo of Sarah with her son. Very light hair versus dark hair. He has more chance of being PrayerPerson than she has.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 18, 2018, 08:12:14 PM
No need for color charts, Duncan, just look at the photo of Sarah with her son. Very light hair versus dark hair. He has more chance of being PrayerPerson than she has.

If the posted photograph is 1964 or later, then her hair may have been a shade or more darker in 1963.

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/46/6c/5b/466c5bc9e56fdadcd5f10f7328e48cd2.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 08:15:40 PM
If the posted photograph is 1964 or later, then her hair may have been a shade or more darker in 1963.

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/46/6c/5b/466c5bc9e56fdadcd5f10f7328e48cd2.jpg)


It wasn't. Sarah's daughter-in-law first met her in March 1963 at which time her hair was already gray/white.

Seems to me the theory to beat right now is that PrayerPerson is a female Depository employee dressed in a Lee Harvey Oswald costume, a Lee Harvey Oswald mask and a Lee Harvey Oswald wig. But who could she be??
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 18, 2018, 09:28:08 PM
So, what date is this photograph of Sarah Stanton? There doesn't appear to be a definitive answer on the Audio discussion.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Sarah Stanton.jpg)
The photograph image of SarahStanton appears to be someone age 50ish, IMO. And, her age in '62-'64 would be 40-41. A lot of times, a photograph date is written on the back, for an accurate time frame.

In any event, I have to conclude it very likely that PrayerPersonImage is wearing a headscarf for part of her attire that day.

And, Mr MacRae, IIRC you have posted an image somewhat similar to PrayerPersonImage, that indications are the time frame is about 12:45/12:55pm, CST.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 09:31:13 PM
Sarah Stanton's seeing LHO with a coke by the lunchroom a few minutes before the shooting exposes Jeraldean Reid's BS story that she saw LHO just after the assassination in the second floor office area with a full bottle of coke in his hand. LHO buys a coke and then spends the next few minutes sitting there staring at it? Yeah right.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 18, 2018, 09:56:11 PM


Karen Westbrook said that while the employees were being detained for questioning on the second floor Jeraldean Reid was telling people of seeing Oswald coming from the lunch room with a Coke...

You're going to need better excuses than that Alan...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on June 18, 2018, 09:57:06 PM
Sarah Stanton's seeing LHO with a coke by the lunchroom a few minutes before the shooting exposes Jeraldean Reid's BS story that she saw LHO just after the assassination in the second floor office area with a full bottle of coke in his hand. LHO buys a coke and then spends the next few minutes sitting there staring at it? Yeah right.

Where did Stanton say she saw Oswald in the lunchroom shortly before the assassination?

In her affidavit she said she didn't see Oswald at any time the day of the assassination.

Stanton: "When President John F. Kennedy was shot I was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository Building with Mr. William Shelley, Mr. Otls Williams,  Dallas, Mrs. R E Sanders, and Billy Lovelady.  All of the above are employed at the Texas School Book Depository Building.  I heard three shots after the President's car passed the front of the building but I could not see the President's car at that time.  I cannot say positively where the shots came from.  I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time or at any time during that day."

Full affidavit here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&relPageId=705&search=Sarah_Stanton


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 10:15:01 PM

Karen Westbrook said that while the employees were being detained for questioning on the second floor Jeraldean Reid was telling people of seeing Oswald coming from the lunch room with a Coke...

You're going to need better excuses than that Alan...

So straight after the assassination, well before LHO has been singled out by the authorities as a person of interest, Jeraldean Reid is already telling everyone her exciting 'Lee story': You won't believe who I saw! LEE HARVEY OSWALD!! Yes, THE Lee Harvey Oswald!!! Yes, here on the second floor!!!! With a COKE in his hand!!!!!

Ms Westbrook is clearly misremembering when she first heard Mrs Reid's story, which the police only got around to hearing about the following day after Roy Truly helpfully tipped them off.

Read Geneva Hine's WC testimony.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 10:18:36 PM
Where did Stanton say she saw Oswald in the lunchroom shortly before the assassination?

In her affidavit she said she didn't see Oswald at any time the day of the assassination.

Stanton: "When President John F. Kennedy was shot I was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository Building with Mr. William Shelley, Mr. Otls Williams,  Dallas, Mrs. R E Sanders, and Billy Lovelady.  All of the above are employed at the Texas School Book Depository Building.  I heard three shots after the President's car passed the front of the building but I could not see the President's car at that time.  I cannot say positively where the shots came from.  I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time or at any time during that day."

Full affidavit here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&relPageId=705&search=Sarah_Stanton

The same FBI that suppressed Carolyn Arnold's sighting of LHO in the second floor lunchroom before the assassination. Maybe Sarah Stanton's daughter-in-law and granddaughter were contacted by Carolyn Arnold a few years back, fed this story and told to wait until a JFK conspiracy theorist made contact out of the blue.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 18, 2018, 10:48:27 PM

Karen Westbrook's account of Jeraldean Reid saying Oswald came into the offices with a Coke is at 29:20 of her 6th Floor Museum Interview video on You-Tube...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 10:52:41 PM
Karen Westbrook's account of Jeraldean Reid saying Oswald came into the offices with a Coke is at 29:20 of her 6th Floor Museum Interview video on You-Tube...

You believe Mrs Reid saw LHO with a full coke shortly after the assassination, and you also believe Sarah Stanton saw LHO with a coke several minutes before it. Why did he not drink the coke in all the minutes that elapsed between these two sightings? Did he have a thing for flat soda?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 18, 2018, 10:54:25 PM


How do you know which Oswald it was Alan? Jeraldean Reid's Oswald had a different shirt than Baker's...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 18, 2018, 11:00:48 PM

How do you know which Oswald it was Alan? Jeraldean Reid's Oswald had a different shirt than Baker's...

Please tell me you're joking, Brian. Because this is nearly as funny as your earlier wig-on-Sarah gag.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on June 19, 2018, 01:39:07 AM
The body make up of the fat woman does not match what you see in the PM film frame. The other one that Larry found does show the possibility of it being the same person in the animated GIF.

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PQSKOLexA4Q/WyhP2qdW5PI/AAAAAAAAFSI/YQ_2NK9VUIYYU-PR4LDgUhwCQUNqy3GoQCLcBGAs/s1600/fat-woman-1.jpg)

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rS-6LSXlZO8/WyhP81CpOPI/AAAAAAAAFSM/KFLDVeBAZOAy_rWwyyGCRj5Z-FHvoFOPgCLcBGAs/s1600/fat-woman-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 19, 2018, 04:24:02 AM
Considering the photograph is furnished by a close relative of SarahStanton, it is of course beyond doubt that it represents SarahStanton. I noticed in the interview that a slight reference indicated some weight gain and/or loss over time. And, it does appear as though SarahStantonImage is older than age 40-42. Estimates tend to have variables, especially considering either way the photograph has to be at least 40 years old.

The ScarfLadyImage may appear to be holding a larger light colored purse, but my take is her purse is smaller, possibly black, and strapped to her forearm. A reference was made in the interview SarahStanton"s daughter inlaw and grand daughter, regarding MsStanton's preferred purse size. The abnormality is, I believe, a reflection of a male image standing next to the glass wall, possibly a construction worker, and wearing a hardhat.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 19, 2018, 08:46:44 AM
The other one that Larry found does show the possibility of it being the same person in the animated GIF.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rS-6LSXlZO8/WyhP81CpOPI/AAAAAAAAFSM/KFLDVeBAZOAy_rWwyyGCRj5Z-FHvoFOPgCLcBGAs/s1600/fat-woman-2.jpg)

It's not a new find, Michael.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Stantonface.gif)(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Stantonface2.gif)

I submitted this woman as a possibility 3 to 4 years ago, maybe longer.

It was largely ignored, except for interest from a couple of members.

Now that we have an image of Sarah Stanton, a comparison can now be made.

This woman does look like a big woman.

The facial features appear to me to be uncannily similar to that of an older in appearance and plumper faced Sarah Stanton as posted by Brian?

Making allowance for the different Camera angles:

Same Deep Set Eyes, High Forehead, Curved Pointy Nose, High Cheekbones, Semi Pointed Witchy Chin.

Any small physical Facial appearance differences, are in my opinion, almost certainly due to the different Camera angle POV's, plus the natural changes caused by the passage of time between the comparison images.

More importantly, Could she be Sarah Stanton? ie, Prayer Man with dark hair in 1963, and filmed at a later moment in time at the entrance of the TSBD? I believe it could very well be.

For Brian:

Brian, Can you try to get a recorded verified ID from her Granddaughter if this is indeed Sarah at a later moment in time at the TSBD entrance?

You may post an opinion, but do not make a final judgement yourself.

It is crucial to let her family be the arbiters of this comparison.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Stantoncomp.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 19, 2018, 05:39:42 PM
Brian, Can you try to get a recorded verified ID from her Granddaughter if this is indeed Sarah at a later moment in time at the TSBD entrance?

You may post an opinion, but do not make a final judgement yourself.


Duncan: In my opinion, (the opinion of the person who has driven this issue), there is simply no way that Scarf Lady is Sarah Stanton or Prayer Man (who are the same person)...There's a couple of reasons why...The white on Scarf Lady's scarf is not something that Darnell's camera and film would have missed at that level of visibility...A good practicer of photo analysis would realize that if Darnell's camera could pick-up the white color of Prayer Man's skin that it wouldn't miss the sheet white color of Scarf Lady's scarf...You should see by your own comparison that the clearly seen white of Scarf Lady's scarf is missing from Prayer Man's head therefore automatically excluding her...The dark of her jacket sleeve also goes too far up her forearm..Both these are disqualifying at a basic level of photo analysis...Your juxtaposition refutes Scarf Lady by direct comparison...

In her comments to me Sarah's grand daughter told me Sarah told her that she watched the assassination from the front steps but then went immediately up to the 2nd floor to get a better view of the goings on...Since the Scarf Lady clip is as much as 20 minutes after the shots that excludes Scarf Lady from being either Prayer Man or Stanton...Scarf Lady is also too thin to be Stanton and obviously has a different face...

Now if you go back to Walton's juxtaposition of Stanton's family photo and Prayer Man and reduce Stanton slightly more for correct proportion you will see a perfect match for the body outline, forearm, and hips...The shoulder profile is also identical...As a skilled analyst it is extremely frustrating to me to see confirming evidence shown in public that people don't detect the finer clues of...With the Stanton juxtaposition you have a photogrammetric lock (as the grand daughter agreed)...

Frazier's syncing of Calvery's position in relation to his talking to "Sarah" makes Prayer Man Stanton...A good photo analyst will see Scarf Lady does not have the obese features of Stanton...


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 19, 2018, 06:02:20 PM
Would you believe Sir Gary Mack of Texashire just happened to ask him the wrong question(around 53m in).
https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-1/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-1&start=3212 (https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-1/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-1&start=3212)

Just before that here's also "Lovelady was around 5'2-5'4" and he only thinks to himself as the parade comes by...
Correct or not, all in all a much more interesting man to listen to, with a little help and the help not even credited.

Also just take a moment to study the very first second of the video...

FTLD.
"CSPAN Buell Wesley Frasier part 1 & 2"

YT version, same again 53m, GM: "was there any one standing there with you?"...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 19, 2018, 06:50:29 PM

Duncan: In my opinion, (the opinion of the person who has driven this issue), there is simply no way that Scarf Lady is Sarah Stanton or Prayer Man (who are the same person)...There's a couple of reasons why...The white on Scarf Lady's scarf is not something that Darnell's camera and film would have missed at that level of visibility...A good practicer of photo analysis would realize that if Darnell's camera could pick-up the white color of Prayer Man's skin that it wouldn't miss the sheet white color of Scarf Lady's scarf...You should see by your own comparison that the clearly seen white of Scarf Lady's scarf is missing from Prayer Man's head therefore automatically excluding her...The dark of her jacket sleeve also goes too far up her forearm..Both these are disqualifying at a basic level of photo analysis...Your juxtaposition refutes Scarf Lady by direct comparison...

In her comments to me Sarah's grand daughter told me Sarah told her that she watched the assassination from the front steps but then went immediately up to the 2nd floor to get a better view of the goings on...Since the Scarf Lady clip is as much as 20 minutes after the shots that excludes Scarf Lady from being either Prayer Man or Stanton...Scarf Lady is also too thin to be Stanton and obviously has a different face...

Now if you go back to Walton's juxtaposition of Stanton's family photo and Prayer Man and reduce Stanton slightly more for correct proportion you will see a perfect match for the body outline, forearm, and hips...The shoulder profile is also identical...As a skilled analyst it is extremely frustrating to me to see confirming evidence shown in public that people don't detect the finer clues of...With the Stanton juxtaposition you have a photogrammetric lock (as the grand daughter agreed)...

Frazier's syncing of Calvery's position in relation to his talking to "Sarah" makes Prayer Man Stanton...A good photo analyst will see Scarf Lady does not have the obese features of Stanton...

Thanks for your opinion, Brian.

I am obviously aware of the issues which you raise, but we are only working with one known real life image of Sarah Stanton probaly taken some years later, and some poor quality speculative Nov 22, 1963 images.

Due to the difference in time between the comparison Nov 22, 1963 images, I see the wearing of a scarf in a much later image as an invalid argument. This is simple common sense.

Now, could you please ask and record the relatives of Sarah Stanton, who know what she really looked like, as we don't know what she really looked like from viewing just one photograph, if scarf lady is possibly Sarah Stanton, and without any opinions being given by yourself before you speak to them, and without any leading questions being asked by yourself.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 19, 2018, 06:59:50 PM
without any opinions being given by yourself before you speak to them, and without any leading questions being asked by yourself.

The interview does appear to be leading the witness but what listeners don't realize is I had several weeks of private messages where the leading opinions were something the grand daughter already agreed on and offered herself...


Kamp is also accusing me of stealing Zambanini's work...Not true...I took a name posted on Find-A-Grave in public and contacted the witness...In no way is that stealing someone's work and I wish I could sue those suggesting it...Besides, Zambanini is trying to prove Oswald was Prayer Man...In no way does any credible researcher owe anything to uncredible researchers trying to mislead the community with false theories... 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 19, 2018, 07:08:09 PM
The interview does appear to be leading the witness but what listeners don't realize is I had several weeks of private messages where the leading opinions were something the grand daughter already agreed on and offered herself...


Kamp is also accusing me of stealing Zambanini's work...Not true...I took a name posted on Find-A-Grave in public and contacted the witness...In no way is that stealing someone's work and I wish I could sue those suggesting it...Besides, Zambanini is trying to prove Oswald was Prayer Man...In no way does any credible researcher owe anything to uncredible researchers trying to mislead the community with false theories...

Never mind what Kamp says, he hasn't a clue and he's not too bright.

Just because Sarah might have been standing to Frazier's left before the motorcade arrived, doesn't mean that she was standing to his left after the motorcade arrived and when the assassination was finished.

Apart from that, I wasn't refering to your already posted interview, I am asking you to show the scarf lady image comparison animated gif shown below to Sarah's family for a review by them, as they are the only ones who really know what she looked like at varying stages of her life.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Stantonface.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 19, 2018, 07:31:05 PM
Kamp is up to his usual tricks...On the Education Forum Kamp found a video from 2002 where Frazier identifies an unnamed woman who is most likely Stanton as being to his left...Kamp thinks he has scored a coup here and overturned our case...

If we go back to the evidence Kamp is flagrantly ignoring Lovelady named the people closest to him on the landing from his left to his right in order...When he did so he listed Shelley, Frazier, and Sarah Stanton...

Kamp just outright ignores that if Stanton were to the left of Frazier that she would be seen in Altgens...Or at least in Darnell where her width couldn't be hidden...

Kamp ignores Frazier's more educated statement about Sarah's location in 2013 when he had been better briefed on the evidence...The Education Forum lets Kamp get away with murder because Frazier's location of Stanton in the 2002 interview has no timing associated with it and is therefore inferior to his 2013 locating of Stanton because the latter has a very precise detailing of the timing involved and the precise actions of the people in question...As with Pauline Sanders' vague locating of Stanton, Kamp prefers a vague example over the precisely accurate one and offers it straight-faced while ignoring that he has had this explained to him for several years...No problem with the moderators there even though Kamp is contemptuously violating their so-called demands for rigor...

It seems obvious to me that Frazier is confusing Stanton's location because he is remembering where she was when she first came outside with Pauline Sanders...There is no doubt to where Frazier places Stanton in his 2013 interview...Stanton is the person he is "looking at" when Calvery got to the steps...The evidence Kamp is ignoring in contempt (with full posting privileges) shows Frazier looking at Prayer Man precisely at the moment he detailed...Only a person in contempt of the research public and honest analysis would dare ignore this and offer an undetailed memory as superior...Especially when it has an easy explanation...

The JFK research community is dishonest because they have the means to take all this and put it coherently and comprehensibly to Frazier...They don't because they already know what he will say...

On a side note, the Deep Politics forum is not embarrassed by its moronic silence on this important evidence or how two highly unqualified incompetent muggers banned its originator...The forum is a bully pit there solely for the dominating egos and not for the evidence...

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Howard Gee on June 19, 2018, 07:33:54 PM
For what it's worth (I know, not much) I think we're looking at the same woman in all 3 images.

I agree with Duncan, especially about the forehead and chin being good matches.

I think it's pretty clear that the woman in the montage is holding a bag tucked under her left wrist and forearm (right above Lovelady's head).

I also think that PP is probably holding a bag, although in a slightly different manner, which accounts for the similar, kind of unusual, arm positioning.

Lastly, I think we can almost see the scarf tails (similar to a tie) in the PP image as in the other clearer image taken on 11/22.

Simply not enough definition in the PP image to make a definitive call, but put a gun to my head and I'm going with we're seeing the same person in all 3 images.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 19, 2018, 07:35:58 PM
Would you believe Sir Gary Mack of Texashire just happened to ask him the wrong question(around 53m in).
https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-1/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-1&start=3212 (https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-1/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-1&start=3212)

Just before that here's also "Lovelady was around 5'2-5'4" and he only thinks to himself as the parade comes by...
Correct or not, all in all a much more interesting man to listen to, with a little help and the help not even credited.

Also just take a moment to study the very first second of the video...

FTLD.
"CSPAN Buell Wesley Frasier part 1 & 2"

YT version, same again 53m, GM: "was there any one standing there with you?"...

Thanks Barry.

53.00:

MACK: Was she off to your right or to your left?

FRAZIER (gesturing to his left): Left.

MACK: To your left.

But if you keep listening, at 54.19 it gets really interesting:

FRAZIER: As soon as I remarked to the woman to my left that Jackie looked as beautiful as in the magazines, the woman smiled, did a sudden cartwheel past me to the other side of the steps and stuck a dark wig on her head for professional reasons.

MACK: Did that surprise you?

FRAZIER: Sure did. But I didn't have time to think about it on account of that was when the first shot rang out.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Logan on June 19, 2018, 08:19:34 PM
IMO the old lady on the stairs with the purse looks more like Zambanini's Pauline Sanders rather than the pudgy Sarah Stanton.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24940-pauline-sanders/
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 19, 2018, 08:31:35 PM
It's not a new find, Michael.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Stantonface.gif)(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Stantonface2.gif)

I submitted this woman as a possibility 3 to 4 years ago, maybe longer.

It was largely ignored, except for interest from a couple of members.

Now that we have an image of Sarah Stanton, a comparison can now be made.

This woman does look like a big woman.

The facial features appear to me to be uncannily similar to that of an older in appearance and plumper faced Sarah Stanton as posted by Brian?

Making allowance for the different Camera angles:

Same Deep Set Eyes, High Forehead, Curved Pointy Nose, High Cheekbones, Semi Pointed Witchy Chin.

Any small physical Facial appearance differences, are in my opinion, almost certainly due to the different Camera angle POV's, plus the natural changes caused by the passage of time between the comparison images.

More importantly, Could she be Sarah Stanton? ie, Prayer Man with dark hair in 1963, and filmed at a later moment in time at the entrance of the TSBD? I believe it could very well be.

For Brian:

Brian, Can you try to get a recorded verified ID from her Granddaughter if this is indeed Sarah at a later moment in time at the TSBD entrance?

You may post an opinion, but do not make a final judgement yourself.

It is crucial to let her family be the arbiters of this comparison.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Stantoncomp.gif)

No, not a new discovery, and I made a reference as such in an earlier Post/Reply on this thread. And, 3 or 4 years in pursuit of additional evidence of the Image possibly being the same person as PrayerPersonImage is most likely a correct time frame.

In any event, after careful study of the research of the issue, about 1.5 years ago, on 1/17/2017 IIRC, I started a thread, on another forum, seeking a positive identification of who was represented by the Image that I referred to as ScarfLady. And, IIRC, the reported time of the scene in both Hughes and Martin Films was at/or about 12:50pm CST, 11/22/'63, as shown of course, at the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance portal stairs/landing.

As previously stated, it appears to me that PrayerPersonImage is looking slightly to her right, towards a returning assassination witness that was announcing what she had seen. However, it also appears, at least to me, that PrayerPersonImage was filmed during a beginning head turn, indicating a possible altered exposure on film. So, I have concluded, that for the most part, PrayerPersonImage's facial features are from mostly a frontal view, and only a very slight view of her facial right side.

For clarification, not a new discovery, nor a discovery by me, but one that I have studied for some time in an effort to obtain the correct identity of ScarfLadyImage herself, as well as any connection to PrayerPersonImage positive identification..
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 19, 2018, 08:49:07 PM
The interview does appear to be leading the witness but what listeners don't realize is I had several weeks of private messages where the leading opinions were something the grand daughter already agreed on and offered herself...


Kamp is also accusing me of stealing Zambanini's work...Not true...I took a name posted on Find-A-Grave in public and contacted the witness...In no way is that stealing someone's work and I wish I could sue those suggesting it...Besides, Zambanini is trying to prove Oswald was Prayer Man...In no way does any credible researcher owe anything to uncredible researchers trying to mislead the community with false theories...

For clarification, BrianDoyle and myself, although we are not always in absolute agreement, have researched, and shared, acquired information relative to SarahJuanitaDeanDanielStanton, in order to obtain her correct and positive identification. And, have done so for a while now.

In any event, as history indicates, all "research information" needs verification for correctness.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 19, 2018, 09:29:34 PM
So Sarah Stanton sees LHO by the second floor lunchroom with a soda in his hand several minutes before the assassination, yet several minutes later (just after the assassination) Marrion L. Baker sees LHO walk into the lunchroom and over to the soda machine. Why would LHO do this? 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 19, 2018, 09:33:47 PM
IMO the old lady on the stairs with the purse looks more like Zambanini's Pauline Sanders rather than the pudgy Sarah Stanton.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24940-pauline-sanders/


Uh, the photos of Pauline Sanders are from 1945 and 1946. The assassination of President Kennedy didn't happen until 1963.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Logan on June 19, 2018, 09:58:48 PM

Uh, the photos of Pauline Sanders are from 1945 and 1946. The assassination of President Kennedy didn't happen until 1963.

No sh*t Sherlock.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 19, 2018, 10:35:11 PM

FRAZIER: As soon as I remarked to the woman to my left that Jackie looked as beautiful as in the magazines, the woman smiled, did a sudden cartwheel past me to the other side of the steps and stuck a dark wig on her head for professional reasons.

MACK: Did that surprise you?

FRAZIER: Sure did. But I didn't have time to think about it on account of that was when the first shot rang out.


Now where are said statements found?I am so far unable to locate these stated quotes.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 19, 2018, 10:45:23 PM
So Sarah Stanton sees LHO by the second floor lunchroom with a soda in his hand several minutes before the assassination, yet several minutes later (just after the assassination) Marrion L. Baker sees LHO walk into the lunchroom and over to the soda machine. Why would LHO do this?


So we are to believe that LHO bought two cokes, one a few minutes before the shooting and the other just after it. Yet none of the interrogation reports say anything about two coke purchases by LHO in the lunchroom.
------------------------But why would LHO lie about having bought two cokes?
Or, if LHO did tell his interrogators about the two cokes...
------------------------Why would this be left out of the interrogation reports?

EITHER LHO doesn't want his interrogators to know about his nefarious decision to buy two cokes
OR his interrogators don't want the rest of us to know that he visited the second floor lunchroom before the shooting.

Carolyn Arnold's experience with the FBI tells us which of the above two conclusions is the correct one...
------------------------The latter.

And so the question becomes: WHY? Why did the authorities not want it known that LHO visited the second floor lunchroom before the shooting?

The very first interrogation report makes interesting reading in the light of this question:

OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the Coca?Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca?Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building


 ???

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 19, 2018, 10:47:03 PM
Now where are said statements found?I am so far unable to locate these stated quotes.

 :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 19, 2018, 10:49:29 PM
Stancak is posting his faulty height lines again...There is very little reason to post good analysis on these boards because it gets ignored...I have posted several times that Stancak's height lines are fatally scientifically flawed and he ignores it and keeps re-entering the same invalid height lines...

If you look at Stancak's height lines his computer software is identifying the square frame of the image and calculating height lines that assume everything in the image is at a perspective and horizon that is dead center level to the frame of the image...But the objects in question are on a 3D perspective within that frame and do not obey the same horizon the software is assuming...

I have posted several times that Stancak's height lines that he compares Frazier to Prayer Man with will always be parallel to the top frame of the image...However the correct perspective horizon he is dealing with conforms to the aluminum window frame that drifts upward as it goes from left to right...The 3D perspective of the aluminum frame is the correct perspective of any height lines so Stancak is once again offering authoritative pseudo-science that the Education Forum members fail to see the egregious flaws of...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 19, 2018, 11:03:06 PM

OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the Coca?Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca?Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building


 ???


New question!

Why do the good agents who wrote this interrogation report not tell us where on the first floor LHO claimed to be when the President passed the building? I mean, they've just gone to the trouble of giving us the relatively minor detail of where the d-mn coke machine is located yet when it comes to the absolutely most important detail of all, the claimed location of the man accused of having shot the President, they say nada, zilcho, diddly squat.

WHY??
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 20, 2018, 12:47:55 AM

OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the Coca?Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca?Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building




It gets weirder!

...he went to the second floor where the Coca?Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca?Cola for his lunch.


The REASON this visit to the second floor coke machine is so important is that it is LHO's explanation for his lunchroom encounter with a policeman, which Captain Will Fritz has just asked him about. Right? BUT the report doesn't even mention the encounter! It's almost as if that encounter isn't yet known to be the reason why the visit to the lunchroom is so important. It's almost as if no one even knows about that lunchroom encounter yet
---------------not LHO
---------------not Fritz
---------------and not the FBI agents who are writing the report.

I.e....

It's as if the report is telling us that LHO only 'admitted' to one visit to the lunchroom
---------------a visit he made before the assassination
---------------when he was seen there by Carolyn Arnold and Sarah Stanton
---------------before he went down to the first floor in time to be there when the President was going past the building.

But why would LHO hide from his interrogators an encounter with a policeman which he knows they will find out about anyway? I mean, that would be crazy, right? What could possess him to act like it never happened?

Friends, how about we connect that question with the question of why the investigators are so keen to hush up LHO's visit to the coke machine before the assassination?

 :-X
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 20, 2018, 04:42:27 AM
Can documentation be provided for these assertions as to what LeeOswald said and/or did? Also, a record of his interrogation by DPD Detective WillFritz? As well as his answers? Direct quotes would be expected, as any repeat of any Q & A would have to viewed as an opinion/conclusion.

It gets weirder!

...he went to the second floor where the Coca?Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca?Cola for his lunch.


The REASON this visit to the second floor coke machine is so important is that it is LHO's explanation for his lunchroom encounter with a policeman, which Captain Will Fritz has just asked him about. Right? BUT the report doesn't even mention the encounter! It's almost as if that encounter isn't yet known to be the reason why the visit to the lunchroom is so important. It's almost as if no one even knows about that lunchroom encounter yet
---------------not LHO
---------------not Fritz
---------------and not the FBI agents who are writing the report.

I.e....

It's as if the report is telling us that LHO only 'admitted' to one visit to the lunchroom
---------------a visit he made before the assassination
---------------when he was seen there by Carolyn Arnold and Sarah Stanton
---------------before he went down to the first floor in time to be there when the President was going past the building.

But why would LHO hide from his interrogators an encounter with a policeman which he knows they will find out about anyway? I mean, that would be crazy, right? What could possess him to act like it never happened?

Friends, how about we connect that question with the question of why the investigators are so keen to hush up LHO's visit to the coke machine before the assassination?

 :-X
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 20, 2018, 05:14:40 AM
Quote
Carolyn Arnold did not see Oswald on the second floor. Molina did not, who left at 12:15, nor did Bonnie Richey, nor did Mrs Reid who left at 12:25!!!

Arnold is noted as being part of a group leaving in other witness' statements


The Education Forum continues to harbor deviant personalities who offer this kind of demented misinformation...Carolyn Arnold absolutely saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...We now have a second witness who put Oswald right outside the lunch room just prior to Carolyn Arnold's witnessing...

Just because Molina, Bonnie Richey, and Mrs Reid didn't see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room doesn't mean Carolyn Arnold didn't...We now have proof that FBI was omitting witnessing of Oswald so how does Kamp know that one of those others didn't see Oswald and FBI changed their account just like they did Stanton and Arnold's?

Kamp is lying and he knows when he writes his false entries that Carolyn Arnold said she broke off from the others and went for a drink of water because she was pregnant...Kamp is a liar by omission...When something works against him he omits it and tries to deliberately mislead the readers...

Proof that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room is the fact that FBI altered her statement because they knew it was dangerous.

The Education Forum membership has decided to surrender its credibility because it allows this fevered punk Bart Kamp to put his nutty research before Earl Golz and major witness Carolyn Arnold...They allow Kamp to do crazy revisions of evidence and come up with insanities like Carolyn Arnold was lying to Golz about seeing Oswald in the lunch room because she just didn't want to get dragged in to anything...That Mrs Arnold lied because she really did see Oswald in the foyer and wanted to cover it up...Kamp is a kook because if that were true then Mrs Arnold just wouldn't have done the interview...And putting Oswald in the lunch room was certainly not going to deter any interest...It is pretty clear to any non-nut researchers who aren't desperately trying to bend all evidence towards Prayer Man that Mrs Arnold was quite serious about seeing Oswald in the lunch room and FBI altering it...I wish I could bring Bart Kamp in front of Golz and Arnold and have him accuse them of lying to their faces...And look at Prayer Man cultist Ron Bulman and how he praises Kamp for his sick offerings and even calls him "prescient"...   



Quote
She sees Oswald through the glass in an FBI statement of the 24th. This statement is suppressed and fished out by Weisberg a few years later.


Even though he is quite aware of it Kamp repeats this FBI falsehood as if it were subtle secret proof...All Kamp is doing here is taking the side of FBI against a main conspiracy witness...When he has to get around evidence that disproves his nutty Prayer Man claim Kamp is so low that he will even go to FBI and approve of their lies...Kamp is well aware that Mrs Arnold vehemently disavowed saying this and even added that she would have no reason to turn around and look back into the Depository...Mrs Arnold repeated to Golz that she said she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...This however is not good enough for the internet crazy Bart Kamp who places himself and his nutty claims before major witness Carolyn Arnold...And the rest of the bozo research community sits back and lets him...What is the equivalent of mobile photo forgery labs is allowed by that community as long as it backs Murphy...In Kamp's twisted mind the lunch room statement is not what is suppressed...It is the FBI's deliberate lie that suffers the censorship...All OK with Jim D who accuses me of not letting others have their say...

If you're a smart detective like I am you will realize FBI shows signs of needing to protect their lie by saying Arnold caught a "glimpse" of Oswald in the foyer...FBI said glimpse because they knew an outright sighting in the open would have been seen by others...



Quote
15 years after the deed and the HSCA is in full swing her name comes up and she talks to Earl Golz, Anthony Summers and The National Enq.


Like many other important conspiracy witnesses...Kamp knows the occasion was Mrs Arnold seeing her FBI report for the first time...He leaves it out because he knows it validates Arnold...Instead he makes it seem sinister and places a tone of guilt against Mrs Arnold with no rational information to back it...Arnold is suspicious simply because Kamp says so...There is no point here...



Quote
She refuses to take part in TMWKK


Like other legitimate witnesses whose true information might get them killed...Again, in Kamp's backwards mind this works against Carolyn Arnold and not for her like healthy logic would normally conclude...



Quote
According to her interviews she went back to get a glass of water, as she was pregnant at the time. There are no water facilities of any kind visible in any of the shots of the 2nd floor lunch room. There is no tap, no sink. No water dispenser.


Which backs up her witnessing...And Kamp forgot to mention while dishonestly suggesting she went out with a group of people in his previous entry... Contrary to Kamp's authoritative pronouncement there were coffee makers visible in photos of the 2nd floor lunch room kitchen...There was also a refrigerator...Kamp is a deliberately misleading liar because the lunch room shows all signs of having water facilities in some form...They had to be filling those coffee makers somewhere nearby and Kamp knows this...I recently found a photo of the lunch room that shows some kind of fixture to the right of the stove...Another photo shows some kind of metal object in that same area...It is possible it was a small tap...

Kamp's pronouncements that there were no water facilities in the lunch room are just the wishes of a blowhard hoping he will be right and nothing more...Those coffee pots were filled somewhere and Carolyn Arnold probably got her water from the same source...What you are looking at in Kamp is a desperate charlatan who will say anything to get rid of evidence that he is aware disproves his Prayer Man claim...


Quote
In the Stone film the water fountain is depicted as next to the lunch room door, which is a fairy tale. There was nothing there.


It was a mistake to not consult Carolyn Arnold...But I think Kamp is full of it and has no idea if there was a water fountain there or not...There are no photos of the vestibule passage and Kamp is most likely bluffing...


Quote
The only visible sign of a water supply was in Gary Murr's FBI drawing he nabbed from NARA: a water cooler in the corridor not far away from the office doors and the lunchroom doors.


Which is not proof that there wasn't a tap in the lunch room...Again - Kamp using FBI sources to deny a major conspiracy witness...


Quote
The second fl lunch room was off limits to labourers, they could get a coke and that was it. Oswald had his lunch usually in The Domino Room on the first floor.


It just goes to show what an arrogant liar Kamp is that he ignores the recent discovery of numerous employees who witnessed Oswald regularly eating in the 2nd floor lunch room...Westbrook, Jacob, and others...Kamp has already had it explained to him that Truly knew Oswald was a spook and was an exception...Kamp is a deliberate liar because he knows of those other employees saying this...Yet he deceptively goes back to his lies and pretends he doesn't know...Kamp is committing deliberate deception here but will be rewarded and praised for it on the Education Forum...Kamp has a particular type psychopathic personality disorder because you can see his awareness of what he is avoiding and therefore knows to be true in his omissions...That particular type of deviant mind believes it can direct reality simply by saying it and that they are getting away with it...Kamp knows other employees confirmed that his claim was wrong...In his mind he'll make it real again by repeating it...He cannot allow evidence that goes against him...

 

Quote
If Stanton talked w Oswald near the stairs (which ones btw??) and with a soda in his hands before the motorcade passed by then that pretty much eliminates the 2nd fl lunch room encounter by itself.


Because Kamp says so...If Kamp says so then it must be...Once again Kamp includes no logic to back up this claim...In the meantime reality, good detective work, and logic show that we have a second corroborating witness for Oswald being in the lunch room...There's no doubt that Sarah Stanton's witnessing places Oswald near the 2nd floor lunch room just prior to Carolyn Arnold's witnessing...And if you have two witnesses to Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room then that makes Baker & Truly's witnessing much more likely...But we should ground ourselves with some healthy reality...The only reason we are dealing with any of this is because both Murphy and Kamp are well aware that Carolyn Arnold's witnessing makes Oswald as Prayer Man much less likely...And all this is before any mention that I have proven Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...For those more oriented toward honest reality and correct interpretation of evidence, what this proves is Oswald was most likely in the lunch room during the shots since the known witnessing keeps putting him there and the black worker would have seen Oswald if he went down to the Domino Room...

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 20, 2018, 05:16:22 AM



OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the Coca?Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca?Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building


 ???

Is there any statements/testimony that can be provided to confirm these assertions?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Joe Simmons on June 20, 2018, 01:04:32 PM
Mr. Doyle, with all due respect, I think you need to develop a few hobbies - perhaps some volunteering in your local community? My only question is when (not if) you are dismissed from this forum, (as has been the case previously) are you aware of any other JFK related forums that you can join? I think you are a member (I assume still in good standing) at Greg Burnham's site - of course, that site averages about 3 messages per week - a perfect spot for you.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 20, 2018, 01:13:15 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3199&v=iNq-y_NLvj8


Start at 53 minute mark.

"She was off to my left." i.e to the right of the entrance.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 20, 2018, 01:45:13 PM
Mr. Doyle, with all due respect, I think you need to develop a few hobbies - perhaps some volunteering in your local community? My only question is when (not if) you are dismissed from this forum, (as has been the case previously) are you aware of any other JFK related forums that you can join? I think you are a member (I assume still in good standing) at Greg Burnham's site - of course, that site averages about 3 messages per week - a perfect spot for you.

With all due respect for you sir, might I ask why you request BrianDoyle to leave this forum? His primary interest is correctly identifying PrayerPersonImage in a provable manner, so why not offer criticism for those that continue to dispute said efforts, all while promoting the LeeHarveyOswald as PrayerManTheory, and doing so against provable evidence, without any provable evidence that LHO was even on the landing as filmed? To my knowledge, this forum does not request anyone to read specific threads/subject matter.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 20, 2018, 01:51:59 PM

...There's no doubt that Sarah Stanton's witnessing places Oswald near the 2nd floor lunch room just prior to Carolyn Arnold's witnessing...And if you have two witnesses to Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room then that makes Baker & Truly's witnessing much more likely...

Sentence 1 = CORRECT!
Sentence 2 = INCORRECT!

Why was LHO at the soda machine when Baker's call caused him to turn around? If Stanton is to be believed (and I do believe her), he had already bought the coke!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 20, 2018, 01:54:09 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3199&v=iNq-y_NLvj8


Start at 53 minute mark.

"She was off to my left." i.e to the right of the entrance.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 20, 2018, 02:03:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3199&v=iNq-y_NLvj8


Start at 53 minute mark.

"She was off to my left." i.e to the right of the entrance.

And where does BuellWesleyFrazier indicate LeeHarveyOswald, who by the way was a coworker that rode to work with him that very morning, to be as the portal area was filmed during the motorcade passing said area?

Also, are you absolutely sure about your "i.e. to the right of the entrance" assertion?
So, are you positive that he was not referring to "off to my left" as being relative to his position while viewing the picture?

In any event, surely had LeeHarveyOswald been among the entrance area/portal occupants as filmed, BuellWesleyFrazier would have seen him!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 20, 2018, 02:09:17 PM
And where does BuellWesleyFrazier indicate LeeHarveyOswald, who by the way was a coworker, and road to work with him that very morning, to be as the portal area was filmed during the motorcade passing said area?

Also, are you absolutely sure about your "i.e. to the right of the entrance" assertion?
So, are you positive that he was not referring to "off to my left" as being relative to his position while viewing the picture?

In any event, surely had LeeHarveyOswald been among the entrance area/portal as filmed, BuellWesleyFrazier would have seen him!



Scenario A: Frazier sees Sarah Stanton (or any other Depository employee other than LHO) in the PrayerPerson position and testifies to that fact---------->NO PROBLEM!
Scenario B: Frazier sees LHO in the PrayerPerson position and testifies to that fact----------->PROBLEM!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 20, 2018, 05:30:22 PM
The Prayer Man cultists are using Larry to walk around my posts with their trivial input...

They are ignoring that Frazier's 2002 reference to Sarah being on his left is easily explained by Sarah being on Frazier's left when she first came out with Pauline Sanders as Sanders testified...That time reference is from as much as 5 minutes before Darnell or more...

When I post that Frazier's video interview from 2013 gives a much more precise and detailed location of Stanton that confirms Frazier is talking about the exact instant of Darnell's image it gets ignored and the Prayer Man trolls come back and post the 2002 reference...Like with Sanders' statement, the Prayer Man trolls deliberately, publicly avoid the better evidence because they know it disproves their dishonest offerings...

Over on the Education Forum because I am censored from responding to my own discoveries the Prayer Man group is being allowed to hijack the thread and flood it with their bogus offerings...This is what the Education Forum moderation considers academic and fair...

Here is an e-mail I sent to Hargrove that he hasn't yet posted:


As for the interview...After a good night's sleep and second listen I realized that the daughter in law said that Sarah asked Oswald "Are you going UP for lunch?" and Oswald replied "No, I'm going back in my room" (5:42)...I now realize that Sarah met Oswald on the landing to the 2nd floor staircase in front of the lunch room...I now realize that in his answer Oswald said he was not going back upstairs but was instead going back in to the lunch room - the same place Carolyn Arnold saw him a few minutes later...My earpiece microphone weakens the voices of people on the phone so I missed her saying that during the interview...I should have followed that up during the interview and missed a chance...

The reason Kamp & company are not answering is because they are retreating to yet another one of Kamp's loads of BS that they will then refer to and say defeats my offering without ever addressing its detailed evidence...Something similar to what they do with your Armstrong evidence...

Review of the interview made me realize Sarah injected Oswald going upstairs simply because she assumed the Warren Commission version was accurate and after her encounter Oswald went upstairs...The true context of her witnessing makes sense if you realize Sarah never saw Oswald after she left him on the staircase landing...

It then becomes apparent that if Sarah was freely telling this story to family members that she must have also mentioned it to FBI...In their report FBI wrote that Sarah never saw Oswald that day...This is what they did to Carolyn Arnold too and her witnessing of Oswald in the lunch room...It stands to reason that FBI was worried about Oswald being seen in the lunch room so we have a second incriminating example of FBI flagrantly altering testimony...

It is criminal that there is no follow-through conversation about Sarah seeing Oswald with a soda (Coke)...Since this is early-on and before the shooting it begs the question if this was the long sleeve shirt Oswald with a Coke and Jeraldean Reid saw the second T-shirt Oswald also with a Coke? Both having Cokes would be an Intelligence tactic for people to assume they were the same person - only Mrs Reid noticed the T-shirt Oswald's Coke was full... (end)


PS -Let's see how long it takes the bully egotist Jim DiEugenio to recognize my interview and its importance...We'll see how long Jim struggles with his ego in order to ignore a serious new witnessing...


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 20, 2018, 07:03:49 PM


The Education Forum is allowing Stancak to ignore that his imaginary Sarah Stanton that he places behind Lovelady and Shelley is exactly where his "Tiny Woman" Pauline Sanders is located and therefore is obviously her...

Stancak is being allowed to post an overhead graphic of this imaginary Stanton while making a cartoon graphic for her that is way too thin and therefore seriously inaccurate...Not to mention the fact that there is no one there and the only reason Stancak is inventing this non-existent Stanton is because he can't admit Prayer Man is her...

Shelley is also gone and off the landing and walking up the Elm St extension by the time of Darnell...So Stancak's placing him on the landing is another gross misrepresentation that the Education Forum moderation doesn't seem to mind...

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 20, 2018, 07:17:58 PM
And where does BuellWesleyFrazier indicate LeeHarveyOswald, who by the way was a coworker, and road to work with him that very morning, to be as the portal area was filmed during the motorcade passing said area?
He didn't mention him obviously.
Quote
Also, are you absolutely sure about your "i.e. to the right of the entrance" assertion?
So, are you positive that he was not referring to "off to my left" as being relative to his position while viewing the picture?

Why would he be facing the door, if he meant to the left of the entrance? Wake up. Trotter.
Quote
In any event, surely had LeeHarveyOswald been among the entrance area/portal occupants as filmed, BuellWesleyFrazier would have seen him![/size][/font][/i]

We can't be sure he didn't, can we?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 20, 2018, 08:36:37 PM
He didn't mention him obviously.
Why would he be facing the door, if he meant to the left of the entrance? Wake up. Trotter.
We can't be sure he didn't, can we?
He didn't mention seeing LHO, obviously because LHO was not there.

Instead of questioning my alertness, why don't you answer the question Mitcham?
And, where did I indicate anything about BWF "facing the door"?

I am confident, especially since no one else saw LHO there at the time, that surely BWF did not see LHO either.


Edited in the hope that Mitcham can recognize both(2) questions...
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 20, 2018, 09:25:21 PM
Quote
After discussions in private with Larry Hancock I gotta say that there is of course the possibility that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald 2x, even though the glass of water argument is flawed with a water cooler being present in the corridor before going back to the office/lunch room.
Typical of Prayer Man theorists Kamp backs off his claim that Carolyn Arnold was lying because there was no water facility in the lunch room while not backing off his claim...Kamp gives no answer to the fact photos of the 2nd floor lunch room kitchen counter show what might be a water tap fixture at the right end of the counter...

Kamp also contemptuously ignores that Carolyn Arnold was very clear to Earl Golz that she never saw or said she saw Oswald in the foyer...With Kamp, even though the FBI lie is the obvious bogus claim, it is the lunch room witnessing that is still questionable....

Quote
Molina's report by Senkel.

Molina's report is useless because it doesn't show anything that relates to Sarah Stanton's witnessing...All it says is he left the building at about 12:15...Molina's saying he was with Stanton on the landing is useless because there is no exact time reference as to when...

Quote
Or Reid's WC testimony.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Do you know about what time it was that you left the lunchroom, was it 12, 12:15?

Mrs. REID. I think around 12:30 somewhere along in there

Mr. BELIN. Were you the last person in the lunchroom?

Mrs. REID. No; I could not say that because I don't remember that part of it because I was going out of the building by myself, I wasn't even, you know, connected with anyone at all.

Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there?

Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Mrs. REID. I can't remember the time they left.

Of course Kamp doesn't comment on the fact that 12:30 was impossible because Reid would have missed the motorcade if she left at that time...

Further on in Mrs Reid's Warren Commission testimony she describes leaving the 2nd floor lunch room via the door to the offices...Kamp avoids discussing this because he knows it works against his Prayer Man BS...What Kamp is avoiding here is if Mrs Reid left through the vestibule door into the offices that means she did not go out on the the 2nd floor staircase landing where Sarah Stanton saw Oswald...Stanton's witnessing is valuable because if it is accurate it means that we know why Mrs Reid would not have seen Oswald...Kamp is very aware that this works against Murphy so he plays dumb and skips mentioning any of it...Stanton's seeing Oswald by the staircase matches the other witnessing...

Mrs Reid told the Commission that she took the passenger elevator down to the front steps to watch the motorcade after she got her jacket and pocketbook from the offices so we know she left the lunchroom at at least 12:25 because Reid mentioned being outside for a few minutes before the motorcade arrived...So this scenario makes it possible that Stanton sees Oswald on the staircase landing while Reid is in the lunch room...Reid exits via the vestibule door to the offices and misses Oswald who is anywhere from the Domino Room to the 2nd floor staircase landing...Carolyn Arnold leaves late and gets a drink from the 2nd floor lunch room because of her pregnancy and not wanting to be outside standing too long... 

Quote
Carolyn Arnold  may have seen him getting a coke as described by  Sarah Stanton and then seen him later while standing outside. As she is spotted looking around to DalTex in Wiegman and could have easily looked back as well, or pass him while going through the vestibule. But she could have used one to deny the other.

So we can ignore several years of Kamp's crazy BS that Carolyn Arnold was lying...Kamp puts himself and his trolling before a real major witness who insisted to Golz that she never saw Oswald in the foyer...Kamp is now taking over reality and ignoring what a highly credible real witnesses insisted in order to force his claim that Arnold saw Oswald in the foyer simply because he says so...Kamp allows himself to ignore that FBI obviously altered Carolyn Arnold's statement because they were aware that Oswald was in the lunch room...Kamp then backs FBI's lie and their alteration of Mrs Arnold's lunch room witnessing without flinching while ignoring that one of those has to be wrong...But when you are taking over reality and just making things happen because you say so you can back two opposing things at the same time in public without accounting for it...If this stupidity and incompetence causes you any trouble, don't worry...The moderators will bail you out by banning those who point it out...   

Quote
The Stanton story is valuable because she stated to her family that she saw Oswald with a soda and asked him whether he was going to go out for lunch!  Before the motorcade passed by and had his Coke FOR his lunch! Just like Hosty and Bookhout stated.

Kamp is not quoting accurately...At 5:42 of the interview the daughter in law says Sarah asked Oswald if he was going UP to lunch (not "out")...Oswald responded, "No, I'm going back to my room"...This is very important because it describes Oswald saying he was not going to go back upstairs but was going to go back in to the lunch room whose door he was standing on front of...The same lunch room Carolyn Arnold would see Oswald sitting in shortly after...Kamp dishonestly reports this passage because he knows it refutes his Prayer Man BS...

The witnessing of the soda is extremely valuable because it makes credible researchers ask if this was the long-sleeved Oswald with the Coke?...That would then mean the T-shirt Oswald witnessed by Mrs Reid was another Oswald with another Coke...The Coke bottle being a useful intelligence prop to make witnesses think the two Oswald's were one person...Bottles that disappeared from the evidence because of their fingerprints...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 20, 2018, 09:55:51 PM
...are you positive that he was not referring to "off to my left" as being relative to his position while viewing the picture?

In any event, surely had LeeHarveyOswald been among the entrance area/portal occupants as filmed, BuellWesleyFrazier would have seen him!

Watch it, find any reference to a picture and get back to us.
BWF would have seen PM yes, well done.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 20, 2018, 10:03:19 PM
Quote
What seems very  possible to me is that Arnold went of her office into the corridor to the water cooler and coming or going saw Oswald in the open area outside the lunchroom which services the corridors, the back stairway which Oswald might well use , the entrance to the lunchroom and of course to the office area.  That would have been well before before the motorcade arrived.   Later, downstairs she saw him again in the area of the TSBD doorway just as the motorcade arrived...as she told the FBI.  That would be essentially the same statement the Supt of the TSBD made to the newspapers the next morning...before he exited the picture.

This would make Stanton's remarks about seeing Oswald with a soda, taking it down to the break room where he was going to eat - and where he and the TSBD employees normally ate - very consistent - along with the remarks of the black employees who recalled him there but obviously became afraid to say so and his own description of seeing them there while he was eating.

All of this would put Oswald on the first floor and certainly not up on the sixth with his rifle preparing for the arrival of the motorcade.

As Bart notes, there will be objections to that, I can't prove it but there are a number of consistencies that suggest it and which also suggest why Arnold, and Stanton might not have wanted to push the issue as the implications of what they had seen became clear.


Larry Hancock is obviously a Prayer Man bunny in bed with the quack he gave the Lancer award to...Here Hancock conveniently ignores that Carolyn Arnold insisted with emphasis to Earl Golz that she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room proper where he was sitting at one of the booth tables (the same one near the front that Westbrook described)...Larry is dragging Oswald out to the vestibule passage in order to avoid admitting Carolyn Arnold's witnessing was real and placed Oswald in the lunch room where he was obviously comfortably set up eating lunch...

Hancock then repeats Kamp's dirty trick and ignores the fact the actual witness herself, Carolyn Arnold, again insisted with emphasis to Golz that she never saw Oswald in the foyer on the 1st floor and that FBI had fabricated that...Hancock and Kamp contemptuously ignore Carolyn Arnold's insisting this and endorse FBI's criminal alteration of the evidence...The Education Forum muggers, while accusing me of stealing Zambanini's research, have now assumed my discovery while removing me from any association with it...They have also claimed my interview was a bad example of an interview but I see they have subsequently adopted most of its contents...

Hancock ignores how "Claims 2nd floor Coke when officer came in" doesn't give Oswald enough time to do what his scenario logistically requires...Nor would Oswald not be out of breath if he had...

I think Carolyn Johnston is still alive...Just like with Frazier none of the Prayer Man phonies are going to rush to interview her because they already know what the answer will be...

Nowhere does Hancock mention that placing Oswald in the vestibule reinforces Baker...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 20, 2018, 10:14:46 PM
Watch it, find any reference to a picture and get back to us.
BWF would have seen PM yes, well done.

BuellWesleyFrazier did not see, would not have seen, and could not have seen LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Entrance stairs/landing during the filming at or near the time of the DealeyPlaza shooting on 11/22/'63.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 20, 2018, 10:20:56 PM
BuellWesleyFrazier did not see, would not have seen, and could not have seen LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Entrance stairs/landing during the filming at or near the time of the DealeyPlaza shooting on 11/22/'63.

He did see him, he was standing right across the landing from him, are you blind?
How could he not see him? Because he must be up on the sixth?
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 20, 2018, 11:18:21 PM
Earl Golz Interviews Carolyn Arnold

In an interview with the journalist Earl Golz in 1978, Carolyn Arnold claimed that ?she saw Oswald in the 2nd?floor lunchroom as she was on her way out of the depository to watch the presidential motorcade ?. She left the building at 12:25pm.? (Earl Golz, ?Was Oswald in Window?,? Dallas Morning News, 26 November 1978, p.13A; available as PDF).

Golz quotes her as saying that Oswald ?was sitting there ? in one of the booth seats on the right?hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly.? She explicitly denied that her sighting of Oswald took place near the front doors: ?Why would I be looking back inside the building? That doesn?t make any sense to me.?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 20, 2018, 11:37:46 PM
The witnessing of the soda is extremely valuable because it makes credible researchers ask if this was the long-sleeved Oswald with the Coke?...That would then mean the T-shirt Oswald witnessed by Mrs Reid was another Oswald with another Coke...The Coke bottle being a useful intelligence prop to make witnesses think the two Oswald's were one person...

Dear Lord in heaven, why must some people complicate what is very simple? LHO bought a coke in the lunchroom a few minutes before the assassination and took this coke down to the first floor, and that's where he was when the assassination happened. There was no lunchroom encounter with Baker and Truly. It's all in that first interrogation report. The only serious debate now is where exactly on the first floor LHO was when the President passed the building!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 21, 2018, 01:05:53 AM
He did see him, he was standing right across the landing from him, are you blind?
How could he not see him? Because he must be up on the sixth?
As discussed for some years now, sufficient evidence places LeeHarveyOswald on the 2nd floor as the motorcade drove past the TSBD. Why did you make a non-provable statement?
Why did BuellWesleyFrazier not testify that he saw LeeHarveyOswald on the landing as filmed at/or near the time of the assassination? Why did any known stairs/landing portal area occupant not testify that they had seen LeeHarveyOswald among them on the stairs/landing as filmed at/or near the time of the assassination? Why did LeeHarveyOswald not testify that he was the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, as the assassination occurred?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 21, 2018, 01:24:07 AM
Dear Lord in heaven, why must some people complicate what is very simple? LHO bought a coke in the lunchroom a few minutes before the assassination and took this coke down to the first floor, and that's where he was when the assassination happened. There was no lunchroom encounter with Baker and Truly. It's all in that first interrogation report. The only serious debate now is where exactly on the first floor LHO was when the President passed the building!

There are statements and/or testimony that DPD Officer MarrionLewisBaker, along with TexasSchoolBookDepository Building Superintendent RoySansomTruly encountered TSBD Bldg Employee LeeHarveyOswald at about 12:31:30/12:32:00pm CST on 11/22/'63, on the TSBD Bldg 2nd floor at/or near the lunchroom. And, that eliminates any "serious debate" about LeeHarveyOswald being on the 1st floor at said time.
It has become a complicated issue simply because, against all odds, some folks have reasoning to promote the not provable LeeHarveyOswald is PrayerManTheory.



http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Howsley on June 21, 2018, 01:32:02 AM
Dear Lord in heaven, why must some people complicate what is very simple?

Exactly what is said to CTers year after year after year. At its essence, this is a simple case. It's the 57 varieties of conspiracy (often contradictory) that weighs it down.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 21, 2018, 02:03:52 AM

It doesn't make sense that Oswald would see the black workers walk through the Domino Room area, go up to the 2nd floor lunch room, and then go back to the Domino Room...What makes much more sense is Oswald staying put where Carolyn Arnold saw him comfortably set up at the booth table and eating lunch...

We have already proven Prayer Man is not Oswald and is Sarah Stanton...Anyone who ignores that is not to be taken seriously and doesn't deserve any response...Prayer Man is 5 foot 5 (Stanton's height), has a chubby arm that matches Stanton's identically, and has hips that are exactly as wide as Stanton's...Frazier also makes clear he is facing Sarah in Darnell...

The only reason the Prayer Man nuts are saying there was no 2nd floor lunch room encounter is because they know it spoils their nutty Murphy theory...These are people who see the evidence that Stanton is Prayer Man and ignore it...

The bottom line is ALL witnesses place Oswald in or near the 2nd floor lunch room and the only logical conclusion that can be made from Baker & Truly's witnessing him there too is that he was there in between... 



 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 11:07:21 AM
It doesn't make sense that Oswald would see the black workers walk through the Domino Room area, go up to the 2nd floor lunch room, and then go back to the Domino Room...

That's not the PrayerMan theory! LHO visited the second floor lunchroom before the shooting, then went down to the domino room (from where he saw the two black workers reenter the building at 12.26), then went out front to catch the motorcade. No way did Stanton or Arnold see him up there as late as 12.25 because they would have exited the building before that time. Carolyn Arnold's time estimate for Anthony Summers of 12:15 is closer to the truth... it was probably 12.20 or so.

Quote
What makes much more sense is Oswald staying put where Carolyn Arnold saw him comfortably set up at the booth table and eating lunch...

You never answered my question! If LHO had already bought his coke before the shooting, why was he at the soda machine when Baker called to him?

Quote
We have already proven Prayer Man is not Oswald and is Sarah Stanton...

You have already proven Prayer Man is not Sarah Stanton.
PM=LHO is still very much a live theory!

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 21, 2018, 03:22:52 PM
That's not the PrayerMan theory! LHO visited the second floor lunchroom before the shooting, then went down to the domino room (from where he saw the two black workers reenter the building at 12.26), then went out front to catch the motorcade. No way did Stanton or Arnold see him up there as late as 12.25 because they would have exited the building before that time. Carolyn Arnold's time estimate for Anthony Summers of 12:15 is closer to the truth... it was probably 12.20 or so.

Where is your provable evidence, not tilted, that LeeHarveyOswald left the lunchroom before the assassination of JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr, and wounding of JohnBowdenConnallyJr? Where is your provable evidence, not tilted, that LHO "then went down to the domino room"? Where is your provable evidence, not tilted, that LHO saw "two black workers reenter the building at 12:26" from the domino room, "then went out front to catch the motorcade"? Where is your provable evidence, not tilted, for "it was probably 12:20 or so"? Where is your provable evidence, not tilted, for exactly what(?) occurred when "it was probably 12:20 or so"?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 21, 2018, 03:36:09 PM

You never answered my question! If LHO had already bought his coke before the shooting, why was he at the soda machine when Baker called to him?

Where is your provable evidence, not tilted, that LHO was at the soda machine, and purchasing a drink, "when Baker called to him"?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 21, 2018, 03:46:55 PM

You have already proven Prayer Man is not Sarah Stanton.
PM=LHO is still very much a live theory!

Where is your provable evidence, not tilted, that anyone has "proven Prayer Man is not Sarah Stanton"?
But yes, PM=LHO is very much a theory, but it being "still very much a live theory" has to be considered questionable.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 03:59:22 PM
Where is your provable evidence, not tilted, that LeeHarveyOswald left the lunchroom before the assassination of JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr, and wounding of JohnBowdenConnallyJr? Where is your provable evidence, not tilted, that LHO "then went down to the domino room"? Where is your provable evidence, not tilted, that LHO saw "two black workers reenter the building at 12:26" from the domino room, "then went out front to catch the motorcade"? Where is your provable evidence, not tilted, for "it was probably 12:20 or so"? Where is your provable evidence, not tilted, for exactly what(?) occurred when "it was probably 12:20 or so"?

Do you believe that Sarah Stanton saw LHO near the second floor lunchroom with a soda in his hand before the assassination?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 21, 2018, 04:25:20 PM
Exactly what is said to CTers year after year after year. At its essence, this is a simple case. It's the 57 varieties of conspiracy (often contradictory) that weighs it down.

This thread/discussion regarding PrayerPersonImage, is due to someone "deciding" after about 50 years, that a virtually un-identifiable image of a person, in shadow, standing on the west side of the Elm St entrance portal, on the landing to observe the presidential motorcade as it drove past the TexasSchoolBookDepository building during a normal lunchtime, since un-identified, the image represents LeeHarveyOswald, and that "should eliminate" any LHO as a LoneGunmanAssassin scenario.
As should be expected, the LeeHarveyOswald is PrayerManTheory created an "industrious" new storyline about the murder of USP JohnFitzgeralKennedySr, and the wounding of TxG JohnBowdenConnallyJr, as well as the following murder of DPD PatrolOfficer JD Tippit, and followed by the murder of accused assassin LeeHarveyOswald, 2 days later.
To my knowledge, while the image later referred to as PrayerPerson was not "claimed to be" anyone "unlikely", there was no dispute, nor significant discussion.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 04:46:03 PM
My EdselAnswerQuiz machine indicates that SarahStanton would have to have a purchased soda in hand before any assassination shooting, since there would not be enough time between the assassination shots and film shot.

Do you believe that Sarah Stanton saw LHO near the second floor lunchroom with a soda in his hand before the assassination?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 21, 2018, 05:03:34 PM
Do you believe that Sarah Stanton saw LHO near the second floor lunchroom with a soda in his hand before the assassination?

My EdselAnswerQuiz machine indicates a Q & A lacking compatibility.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 05:08:23 PM
My EdselAnswerQuiz machine indicates a Q & A lacking compatibility.

Don't try to be clever, Mr Trotter, you don't know how.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 21, 2018, 05:33:28 PM
I hate to respond to Alan because I think he is a Prayer Man pranker who ignores valid evidence...He has gotten Larry to take the bait and is using trivial points to walk Larry and the thread around the conclusive evidence I am showing...It is a tactic of the Prayer Man nuts to argue tit for tat in response to the main evidence and therefore reduce the quality of the discussion in order to avoid the main evidence...

The problem with pushing Carolyn Arnold's witnessing back is it overlaps with Jeraldean Reid's time of leaving the lunch room late...I don't know, maybe Jeraldean Reid saw Oswald just like Carolyn Arnold and kept her mouth shut or was told to...You can't push Carolyn Arnold's witnessing back too far because it overlaps with Jeraldean Reid's time in the lunch room...I don't trust Summers...DiEugenio has shown a weird tendency in Summers to back faulty WC claims and Carolyn Arnold may not have told him that...Alan ignores the fact that FBI is the source for 12:15 and when Carolyn Arnold was allowed to read her testimony and fact check it she wrote 12:25 in 1964...She also insisted on 12:25 to Golz and was pregnant so therefore had a reason to go out late in order not to stand too long...

Alan knows this but deliberately leaves it out...That is what Kamp and the Prayer Man cultists do...They omit evidence that works against them and don't truthfully consider it when making observations...They group-up like they are doing on the Education Forum, and dominate JFK research websites with their dishonest information so badly that this distorted history of the happenings at the Depository is repeated so many times that it then begins to look like the established facts when it is far from that and only appears so because of the dishonest omissions of persons like Alan who are really just cheerleading propagandists...

Who was the black worker by the back wall in the chair? Eddie Piper? He had to have seen Oswald's transit from the 2nd floor lunch room to the Domino Room...From this evidence I'm beginning to wonder if the second Oswald was in the Domino Room?...The ROKC-based nuts who back the now-disproven Prayer Man theory don't believe in Armstrong or the evidence for two Oswalds at the Depository...They deal with it by trolling and harassing the skilled researchers who detect the evidence for two Oswalds...Jim D uses his usual dirty method of not responding when cornered by evidence he doesn't want to admit which makes him an Armstrong denier who sides with the ROKC trolls...

In any case whether Oswald was in the Domino Room at 12:26 or not he was definitely in the 2nd floor lunch room when Baker & Truly encountered him there...The only reason we are even considering the lunch room encounter being a hoax is because evidence fantasist Greg Parker and Sean Murphy knew that its reality was fatal to their silly Prayer Man theory which was just a product of Greg Parker's overactive imagination and need to get attention as a great JFK assassination researcher who uncovered a major discovery...The credible JFK assassination research community should be ashamed of itself for allowing these lunatic fringe characters take over the main research world...In Facebook messages Parker practically conceded Prayer Man was a woman after seeing the Davidson enhancement...He then retired like Murphy...We are talking sick people who know Prayer Man is a woman who continue with their knowingly-false evidence anyway...Who gets rejected and banned? Not them...The community has a serious problem...

I don't know if Baker saw Oswald buying a Coke by the Coke machine...Seems like Baker's description didn't give him enough time and said Oswald was moving in to the lunch room and was told to stop, turn around, and come back to him...But if he was buying a Coke it could be because he had orders to do so seeing how the T-shirt Oswald's having a Coke shows the two Oswald's were obeying a plan to have a Coke in their hands...I suspect it was because the visual prop would trick people into assuming they were one person...Alan and Larry Hancock ignore that Stanton's seeing Oswald in the vestibule hallway makes Oswald being there for Baker much more likely...Jim DiEugenio is allowed to be AWOL on all this evidence and still be the dominating controller even though his entries show he is obviously clueless...

I have been deliberately stripped of my discovery by the bullies over on the Education Forum...DiEugenio has disgraced himself and is now partnering with the Rube Goldberg pseudo-scientist Andrej Stancak who never gets anything straight...Jim D is a person who always insists on threads being kept on topic and is one of the first to complain...There he is helping the Prayer Man people hijack Hargrove's posting of my interview and evidence while stripping me of credit in my own thread...Jim is a dirty player and hypocrite...He accuses me of not tolerating other's research when in fact I have debunked that research...Meanwhile while accusing me of victimizing others' right to post evidence Jim ignores that I have been censored out of the community by uncredible gatekeepers and have had my right to post removed, despite showing the correct evidence...Jim has also helped validate the ROKC troll group...

While the thread is deliberately hijacked away from my proof no one asks Kamp why he showed a beautiful blow-up of Prayer Man's forearm but avoided placing Stanton's forearm next to it for comparison? One look at that forearm in comparison to Prayer Man's shows it is a match - which is why Kamp avoided it...Even DiEugenio noticed the stocky forearm but has now suddenly developed amnesia...But when you are hijacking threads due to bully censorship part of the benefits is being able to not answer points like that...

Alan's ignoring of all the evidence that Prayer Man is Stanton is silly and he shouldn't be allowed to do it...

 

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 21, 2018, 05:58:23 PM
Don't try to be clever, Mr Trotter, you don't know how.

If trying to be clever is making assertions beyond fact, ::) no thanks.

If trying to be clever is calling now deceased eyewitnesses "liars", no thanks.

If trying to be clever is calling relatives of eyewitnesses "liars", no thanks.

If trying to be clever is calling DPD Officer ML Baker a "liar", no thanks.

If trying to be clever is posting on a biased forum that "eliminates" disagreeing/opposing posters, and then "claiming victory", ??? no thanks.
If trying to be clever is avoiding providing reliable provable evidence for BS:"claims", no thanks.


And especially, if trying to be clever is riding along :o on the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTitanic, absolutely no thanks.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 06:57:40 PM
...I don't know, maybe Jeraldean Reid saw Oswald just like Carolyn Arnold and kept her mouth shut or was told to...

This! Mrs Reid was notably uncomfortable on this point.

The rest of what you write is just garbage BTW. There was only one LHO.

Serious questions for any serious people reading (i.e. not LNers, not Brian 'Wig-in-a-Professional-Situation' Doyle or ItalicsTrotter) -

If Sarah Stanton saw LHO with a coke before the assassination and if Mrs Reid saw LHO with a coke after the assassination, then
-------------was it the same coke??
If it WAS, then the hell what was LHO doing at the soda machine when Marrion L. Baker called at him?
And why did Mrs Reid see a FULL bottle of coke in LHO's hand?


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 21, 2018, 07:13:20 PM
This! Mrs Reid was notably uncomfortable on this point.

The rest of what you write is just garbage BTW. There was only one LHO.

Serious questions for any serious people reading (i.e. not LNers, not Brian 'Wig-in-a-Professional-Situation' Doyle or ItalicsTrotter) -

If Sarah Stanton saw LHO with a coke before the assassination and if Mrs Reid saw LHO with a coke after the assassination, then
-------------was it the same coke??
If it WAS, then the hell what was LHO doing at the soda machine when Marrion L. Baker called at him?
And why did Mrs Reid see a FULL bottle of coke in LHO's hand?
Excuse me Ford, but I can assure you that if being part of "any serious people reading" places me in the same group as you, I will gladly abstain.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 21, 2018, 07:16:25 PM
As anyone can see...Alan offers shouts of "garbage" against highly detailed sophisticated descriptions of evidence and then demands not only equal say but dominating exclusive say...DiEugenio then goes on to the corrupted JFK boards and claims I am unfairly preventing the Prayer Man side their right to speak...Alan shows the method of Prayer Man defenders to get the discussion down to primitive shouts instead of responding to the intelligent, accurate evidence...This is why I try not to answer Alan...He is not offering serious or sincere input...

If we go to the Education Forum thread Kamp has gotten the help of the Prayer Man mob to hijack the thread and has now posted that Ochus Campbell saw Oswald in a small utility closet by the front stairs on the 1st floor...Kamp dishonestly inserts this because he is trying to suggest it puts Oswald by the front door where he was seen as Prayer Man...However honest reading of Ochus Campbell's witnessing shows he was down by the Grassy Knoll after the shots and then came back to the Depository lobby...This took long enough that Jerladean Reid's Oswald had time to walk from the offices down to the lobby...Campbell's Oswald is Jeraldean Reid's or Baker's...

Kamp is hijacking the thread because he is aware he needs to get the thread detoured from the on-topic subject matter that disproves Prayer Man...And it is being tolerated by the moderators who look the other way as long as the right person is sadistically denied...

Mrs Reid is giving linguistic forensic clues that there's something more to her knowledge of whether there were other people in the lunch room when she was there...
 

 

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 08:06:41 PM
This! Mrs Reid was notably uncomfortable on this point.

The rest of what you write is just garbage BTW. There was only one LHO.

Serious questions for any serious people reading (i.e. not LNers, not Brian 'Wig-in-a-Professional-Situation' Doyle or ItalicsTrotter) -

If Sarah Stanton saw LHO with a coke before the assassination and if Mrs Reid saw LHO with a coke after the assassination, then
-------------was it the same coke??
If it WAS, then the hell what was LHO doing at the soda machine when Marrion L. Baker called at him?
And why did Mrs Reid see a FULL bottle of coke in LHO's hand?

Sarah Stanton's sighting of LHO with a coke before the assassination, along with the investigators' determination to cover up this visit to the lunchroom before the assassination, suggests strongly that
---------------> when LHO told Captain Fritz he bought a coke 'for his lunch' he was telling the truth!
---------------> there was no second purchase of a coke from the machine!
---------------> the relationship between LHO-with-a-coke-prior-to-the-assassination (Stanton) and LHO-with-a-coke-after-the-assassination (Reid) is not REPETITION but DUPLICATION!

i.e.


---------------> LHO's visit to the lunchroom prior to the assassination GENERATED the fictional story of his visit to the lunchroom after the assassination!
---------------> they took a REAL event and pretended it had happened at a different point in time!

And THAT, my friends, is why the investigators deep-sixed Carolyn Arnold's sighting of LHO in the lunchroom before the assassination!

Now, thanks to Linda Zambanini's (and Brian Doyle's) work in tracking down Sarah Stanton's relatives, we finally have compelling corroboration for the much-maligned Carolyn Arnold's story.

Marrion L. Baker & Roy Truly's second floor lunchroom story crumbles to dust  Walk:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 21, 2018, 08:50:20 PM

The Stanton Coke witnessing and Reid Coke witnessing is not a duplication...Stanton's Oswald was most likely the long-sleeved shirt Oswald encountered by Baker and Truly...Alan is not telling the truth and the Baker & Truly encounter happened just like they said...Alan is misleading the JFK research community on serious evidence...Mrs Reid's Oswald was the short-sleeved T-shirt Oswald who was obviously Roger Craig's Oswald...Mr Ford grants himself the right to flagrantly ignore or mock known evidence...He gives himself away by doing that and in the process shows he has to ignore main witnessing to make his Prayer Man theory work...

Ford also gives himself away by implying the Stanton/Arnold witnessing "generated" the 2nd floor lunch room encounter...However if we look at the details of that encounter Baker & Truly were pretty straight forward about what had occurred...Baker wasn't precise in his first affidavit probably because the cover-up was happening by then and he didn't want to volunteer anything to spoil it at the moment...But that doesn't mean the encounter didn't occur as DiEugenio improperly suggests...The Prayer Man people are ignoring the part of Stanton's witnessing that Shows Oswald was in the vestibule just like Baker claimed...The real "generation" here is the Prayer Man cultists trying to deny the lunch room encounter because they know it dismisses Prayer Man as Oswald...Please also take note how Alan recognizes the lunch room encounter when he needs to put Oswald at the Coke machine but then denies it when it threatens his Prayer Man claim...

No, what really happened is they deep-sixed BOTH Stanton and Arnold's witnessing because the real witnessing of Oswald in the lunch room by Baker & Truly would have eventually made people realize that those encounters bridged-over to each other and that Oswald was there in between...Or maybe went to the Domino Room and came back in between...

This true location forced the plotters to kill Oswald before this obvious evidence got out at trial...

The Prayer Man people are hypocrites and cowards who can only function when the opposition is censored and removed...


Stanton sees Oswald by the stairs in front of the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:18...Oswald goes to the Domino Room where he sees Norman and Jarman...Oswald walks back up to the 2nd floor lunch room where Carolyn Arnold sees him at 12:25...Baker & Truly see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:31:15...The long-sleeved lunch room Oswald descends the back staircase and exits the rear...He is seen by Frazier walking up Houston and crossing at Elm... Jeraldean Reid sees a second Oswald exit through the offices... Roger Craig sees the T-shirt Oswald get in the station wagon...




Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 09:02:06 PM
The Stanton Coke witnessing and Reid Coke witnessing is not a duplication...Stanton's Oswald was most likely the long-sleeved shirt Oswald encountered by Baker and Truly...Alan is not telling the truth and the Baker & Truly encounter happened just like they said...Alan is misleading the JFK research community on serious evidence...Mrs Reid's Oswald was the short-sleeved T-shirt Oswald who was obviously Roger Craig's Oswald...Mr Ford grants himself the right to flagrantly ignore or mock known evidence...He gives himself away by doing that and in the process shows he has to ignore main witnessing to make his Prayer Man theory work...

Ford also gives himself away by implying the Stanton/Arnold witnessing "generated" the 2nd floor lunch room encounter...However if we look at the details of that encounter Baker & Truly were pretty straight forward about what had occurred...Baker wasn't precise in his first affidavit probably because the cover-up was happening by then and he didn't want to volunteer anything to spoil it at the moment...But that doesn't mean the encounter didn't occur as DiEugenio improperly suggests...The Prayer Man people are ignoring the part of Stanton's witnessing that Shows Oswald was in the vestibule just like Baker claimed...The real "generation" here is the Prayer Man cultists trying to deny the lunch room encounter because they know it dismisses Prayer Man as Oswald...Please also take note how Alan recognizes the lunch room encounter when he needs to put Oswald at the Coke machine but then denies it when it threatens his Prayer Man claim...

No, what really happened is they deep-sixed BOTH Stanton and Arnold's witnessing because the real witnessing of Oswald in the lunch room by Baker & Truly would have eventually made people realize that those encounters bridged-over to each other and that Oswald was there in between...Or maybe went to the Domino Room and came back in between...

This true location forced the plotters to kill Oswald before this obvious evidence got out at trial...

The Prayer Man people are hypocrites and cowards who can only function when the opposition is censored and removed...


Stanton sees Oswald by the stairs in front of the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:18...Oswald goes to the Domino Room where he sees Norman and Jarman...Oswald walks back up to the 2nd floor lunch room where Carolyn Arnold sees him at 12:25...Baker & Truly see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:31:15...The long-sleeved lunch room Oswald descends the back staircase and exits the rear...He is seen by Frazier walking up Houston and crossing at Elm... Jeraldean Reid sees a second Oswald exit through the offices... Roger Craig sees the T-shirt Oswald get in the station wagon...

Coke x2?  :D

Oswald x2?  :D

You've jumped the shark, Brian. Time to find a new hobby. Maybe Ralph Cinque has a new startup you could help him with?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 09:11:00 PM
If that first FBI interrogation report had stated that LHO claimed to have gone to the second floor lunchroom for a coke, stayed there eating his lunch and was just buying a second coke when the officer came into the room, then we could be having a straightforward debate about whether or not LHO was telling the truth. But the relationship between the actual first report and then the followup version, plus the suppression of Carolyn Arnold's story, gives us the key to what really happened: a phoney story involving LHO being challenged in the lunchroom was created to cover up the fact that he was on the first floor when the President passed the building.

I'm open to the possibility that LHO was in the domino room, or moseying around the shipping floor (e.g. near a storage room). However the first interrogation report's WEIRD SILENCE on where EXACTLY LHO claimed to have been on the first floor tells me that the striking similarity between LHO and PrayerPerson is probably no coincidence!

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zquNcX0pqHs/VpVF-Y3UOHI/AAAAAAAAAQw/MMYjUOpYpSE/s320/mf1.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 09:33:39 PM
This is what the SECOND FBI interrogation report has to say:

OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca?cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. MR. TRULY was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees? lunch room.

Sarah Stanton's encounter with LHO-with-a-coke BEFORE the assassination, BEFORE the search of the Depository building, tells us that the above chain of events is a LIE.

But whose lie is it?  :-\

Well, seems to me
-------------->LHO (guilty or innocent) would have had no reason to hide his pre-shooting visit to the coke machine.
-------------->the investigators would have had every reason to do so!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 21, 2018, 09:42:10 PM
Be aware that Alan Ford is showing an image with an arrow pointing to Sarah Stanton and claiming it puts Oswald out on the landing to the Depository front steps...


If Oswald was in the process of buying a 2nd Coke when Baker confronted him then that would explain the problems with Baker's affidavit and the suppression of the Coke itself...The real suppression here would then be Sarah Stanton's witnessing of Oswald with a Coke...Baker crosses-out the Coke in his September 1964 Burnett statement because all involved realize its danger in shooting down the possible timing for the dash from the 6th floor...

Does it ever dawn on Alan that everything now coming in in favor of the Coke makes it much more likely Oswald being in the lunch room and being witnessed by Baker also becomes more likely? 

Look at that scofflaw DiEugenio avoiding all this...No comment on the Coke vs his previous scoffing doubt...

I think Alan is taking liberties with the interrogation quotes...It is possible from that wording that the Coke when officer came in is the same Coke that Sarah Stanton saw...Alan fudges this because he is aware it would put Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room for the entire period...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 09:48:55 PM
If Oswald was in the process of buying a 2nd Coke when Baker confronted him then that would explain the problems with Baker's affidavit and the suppression of the Coke itself...

The reason Baker's affidavit doesn't describe the lunchroom incident is that it hasn't been invented yet!

The reason for the suppression of the coke is that LHO bought it at the wrong time!

The reason that you don't see any of this is that you are an uncredible fantasist!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 10:01:44 PM
I think Alan is taking liberties with the interrogation quotes...It is possible from that wording that the Coke when officer came in is the same Coke that Sarah Stanton saw...

 ???

You seem to be forgetting that Baker told the Warren Commission he saw LHO by the coke machine!

So LHO, "having JUST PURCHASED a Coca-Cola from the soft drink machine" "at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers", is confronted by an officer several minutes before the assassination?

 ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 21, 2018, 10:06:00 PM
The reason Baker's affidavit doesn't describe the lunchroom incident is that it hasn't been invented yet!


That's just you saying that because you are trying to force the Prayer Man theory against the evidence that is now all coming in against it...Alan is a dishonest trickster because he knows as well as I do that my confirmation of a Coke from a new corroborating witness gives good reason for Baker's avoidance...If Alan were a sharper more honest detective he would realize Baker describes the encounter in a way that helps him avoid mentioning the lunch room and Coke...A sharp detective would see that Baker doesn't avoid the encounter itself because he tries to pawn it off as happening somewhere else...So he does mention the encounter, only he omits the part that exposes the Coke...This tells you he is avoiding something he knows to be both dangerous and true...The reason Baker's affidavit doesn't describe the dangerous incidentals of the lunch room encounter is because the encounter was real and possessed details that Baker needed to avoid if he was going obey the cover-up...He's avoiding any mention or identification of the Coke...The plotters probably decided to admit the lunch room as being the location when they realized there were three woman employees who witnessed Oswald being there (Stanton, Arnold, Reid)...And don't forget Truly who told his wife about it Friday night...So this new witnessing by Stanton is highly valuable to understanding Baker's 1st day affidavit...He was avoiding the Coke...Alan already knows this...Otherwise he would be asking who then Baker encountered at the 3rd floor landing?

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 21, 2018, 10:08:09 PM
Sarah Stanton's sighting of LHO with a coke before the assassination, along with the investigators' determination to cover up this visit to the lunchroom before the assassination, suggests strongly that
---------------> when LHO told Captain Fritz he bought a coke 'for his lunch' he was telling the truth!
---------------> there was no second purchase of a coke from the machine!
---------------> the relationship between LHO-with-a-coke-prior-to-the-assassination (Stanton) and LHO-with-a-coke-after-the-assassination (Reid) is not REPETITION but DUPLICATION!

i.e.


---------------> LHO's visit to the lunchroom prior to the assassination GENERATED the fictional story of his visit to the lunchroom after the assassination!
---------------> they took a REAL event and pretended it had happened at a different point in time!

And THAT, my friends, is why the investigators deep-sixed Carolyn Arnold's sighting of LHO in the lunchroom before the assassination!

Now, thanks to Linda Zambanini's (and Brian Doyle's) work in tracking down Sarah Stanton's relatives, we finally have compelling corroboration for the much-maligned Carolyn Arnold's story.

Marrion L. Baker & Roy Truly's second floor lunchroom story crumbles to dust  Walk:

Sorry Alan but Sarah Stanton's signed statement of March 18, 1964 trumps anything that her grandkids allege that she recalled to them years after the fact. Sarah Stanton did not sight Oswald holding a coke before the assassination. She never saw him at any time that day.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 21, 2018, 10:10:02 PM
???

You seem to be forgetting that Baker told the Warren Commission he saw LHO by the coke machine!

   
Says Alan, while deliberately omitting the rest of what Baker said...How is Oswald over by the Coke machine buying a Coke when he only has a second or two to get from the vestibule window to the Coke machine?...Baker's other statements just have Oswald standing there with Baker ordering him to come to him...

Does 2 Cokes in 20 minutes make sense on Oswald's budget?

Wasn't Carolyn Arnold's 12:25 statement signed? Did it contain her witnessing of Oswald in the lunch room?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 10:14:13 PM

That's just you saying that because you are trying to force the Prayer Man theory against the evidence that is now all coming in against it...Alan is a dishonest trickster because he knows as well as I do that my confirmation of a Coke from a new corroborating witness gives good reason for Baker's avoidance...If Alan were a sharper more honest detective he would realize Baker describes the encounter in a way that helps him avoid mentioning the lunch room and Coke...A sharp detective would see that Baker doesn't avoid the encounter itself because he tries to pawn it off as happening somewhere else...So he does mention the encounter, only he omits the part that exposes the Coke...This tells you he is avoiding something he knows to be both dangerous and true...The reason Baker's affidavit doesn't describe the dangerous incidentals of the lunch room encounter is because the encounter was real and possessed details that Baker needed to avoid if he was going obey the cover-up...He's avoiding any mention or identification of the Coke...The plotters probably decided to admit the lunch room as being the location when they realized there were three woman employees who witnessed Oswald being there (Stanton, Arnold, Reid)...And don't forget Truly who told his wife about it Friday night...So this new witnessing by Stanton is highly valuable to understanding Baker's 1st day affidavit...He was avoiding the Coke...Alan already knows this...Otherwise he would be asking who then Baker encountered at the 3rd floor landing?

I'm thrilled silly to see that we agree that Baker lied in his Warren Commission testimony! But you're so gullible you believe everything else he told them!!

And I'm just cockahoop that you also agree that Mrs Reid lied in her Warren Commission testimony! But etc.

The only thing forced here is the lunchroom story involving Baker and Truly. It's hilarious that you're so uncredible and so lacking in linguistic forensic detective research analysis skills that you can't even see the explosive significance of the new Stanton evidence YOU YOURSELF have just uncovered!  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 10:15:38 PM
Sorry Alan but Sarah Stanton's signed statement of March 18, 1964 trumps anything that her grandkids allege that she recalled to them years after the fact. Sarah Stanton did not sight Oswald holding a coke before the assassination. She never saw him at any time that day.

Sorry, Mr Nickerson, but you need to familiarise yourself with the relevant information before making a judgment!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 10:20:42 PM
   
Says Alan, while deliberately omitting the rest of what Baker said...How is Oswald over by the Coke machine buying a Coke when he only has a second or two to get from the vestibule window to the Coke machine?...Baker's other statements just have Oswald standing there with Baker ordering him to come to him...

Baker testified to the Warren Commission that LHO was at the coke machine by the time Baker called out to him. It's all made up!

Quote
Does 2 Cokes in 20 minutes make sense on Oswald's budget?

There never WERE 2 cokes, and that's the whole point! Baker lied, Truly lied, all but the first FBI report lied!

Quote
Wasn't Carolyn Arnold's 12:25 statement signed? Did it contain her witnessing of Oswald in the lunch room?

The FBI suppressed her story. If it weren't for your contact with Stanton's relatives, her story probably would never have been corroborated. But now that it has, WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED! LHO bought his coke before the assassination and took it down to the first floor. He was on the first floor when the President passed the building.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 21, 2018, 10:23:03 PM
I'm thrilled silly to see that we agree that Baker lied in his Warren Commission testimony! But you're so gullible you believe everything else he told them!!

And I'm just cockahoop that you also agree that Mrs Reid lied in her Warren Commission testimony! But etc.

The only thing forced here is the lunchroom story involving Baker and Truly. It's hilarious that you're so uncredible and so lacking in linguistic forensic detective research analysis skills to see the explosive significance of the new Stanton evidence YOU YOURSELF have just uncovered!  :D
We'll take Alan's obnoxious avoidance of what was directly said to be confirmation...Thanks...

Alan forgets that the Commission itself was one big lie and that Baker probably did it under pressure from its overseers...

The lunch room encounter was real and Baker was avoiding mention of the Coke that showed Oswald did not have enough time to get down to the lunch room from the 6th floor Sniper's Nest...Or even worse, was the same Coke Sarah Stanton saw him with and placed him there the whole time...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 10:26:40 PM

Alan forgets that the Commission itself was one big lie and that Baker probably did it under pressure from its overseers...

Did Baker also lie to the Warren Commission about WHERE in the lunchroom LHO was when he called to him, i.e. at the soda machine? Try answering, Brian, WITHOUT airlifting a second Oswald into the scenario!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 21, 2018, 10:28:36 PM


As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES - Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go away from me.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. BAKER - I ran on over there
Representative BOGGS -You mean where he was?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it seemed to me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is another door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a hallway over there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I could. see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet away from me in the lunchroom.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do?
Mr. BAKER - I hollered at him at that time and said, "Come here." He turned and walked right straight back to me.
Mr. BELIN - Where were you at the time you hollered?
Mr. BAKER - I was standing in the hallway between this door and the second door, right at the edge of the second door.
Mr. BELIN - He walked back toward you then?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 21, 2018, 10:31:12 PM
Sorry, Mr Nickerson, but you need to familiarise yourself with the relevant information before making a judgment!

Grandkids, kids, in-laws, or whoever. It makes no difference. Sarah Stanton's signed statement of March 18, 1964 speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 10:38:59 PM

As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES - Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go away from me.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. BAKER - I ran on over there
Representative BOGGS -You mean where he was?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it seemed to me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is another door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a hallway over there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I could. see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet away from me in the lunchroom.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do?
Mr. BAKER - I hollered at him at that time and said, "Come here." He turned and walked right straight back to me.
Mr. BELIN - Where were you at the time you hollered?
Mr. BAKER - I was standing in the hallway between this door and the second door, right at the edge of the second door.
Mr. BELIN - He walked back toward you then?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.

20 feet away from Baker in the lunchroom IS by the soda machine! And the connection is explicitly made by the second FBI interrogation report: "having just purchased a Coca-Cola". Makes LHO out to be a liar!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 10:39:47 PM
Grandkids, kids, in-laws, or whoever. It makes no difference. Sarah Stanton's signed statement of March 18, 1964 speaks for itself.

Your gullibility re. FBI conduct of the case speaks for itself!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 21, 2018, 10:44:22 PM
20 feet away from Baker in the lunchroom IS by the soda machine! And the connection is explicitly made by the second FBI interrogation report: "having just purchased a Coca-Cola". Makes LHO out to be a liar!


So you admit you lied and were deliberately misleading and Baker never said what you quoted?

You lied Alan...You said Baker said Oswald was at the Coke machine...

The "just purchased" is most likely from the time of the Stanton Coke...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 10:53:21 PM

The "just purchased" is most likely from the time of the Stanton Coke...

If the "just purchased" in the second FBI report is from the time of the Stanton Coke, then either
---------------->LHO told Captain Fritz he was challenged by a police officer before the assassination
or
---------------->the report itself is lying about what LHO said.
The FIRST FBI report's lack of ANY MENTION of a police officer in the lunchroom tells us which of the above two conclusions is the logical one!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 21, 2018, 11:04:13 PM
If the "just purchased" in the second FBI report is from the time of the Stanton Coke, then either
---------------->LHO told Captain Fritz he was challenged by a police officer before the assassination
or
---------------->the report itself is lying about what LHO said.
The FIRST FBI report's lack of ANY MENTION of a police officer in the lunchroom tells us which of the above two conclusions is the logical one!

This, friends, is why the coke Mrs Reid sees in LHO's hand as he walks through the office area HAS to be FULL. The first coke (a.k.a. the REAL coke he bought before the assassination) has to be erased from history! Because it EXPLAINS the true provenance of the second floor lunchroom story being fed to the public.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 21, 2018, 11:47:18 PM
If the "just purchased" in the second FBI report is from the time of the Stanton Coke, then either
---------------->LHO told Captain Fritz he was challenged by a police officer before the assassination
or
---------------->the report itself is lying about what LHO said.
The FIRST FBI report's lack of ANY MENTION of a police officer in the lunchroom tells us which of the above two conclusions is the logical one!


Twists of meaning by the bending everything towards Prayer Man Alan Ford...(Who shouldn't be taken seriously)

No, all it means is "just purchased" extends to the Stanton Coke and that he had gone to the 2nd floor lunch room to buy it...All it means is "2nd floor Coke when officer came in" means Oswald had a Coke on the 2nd floor when Baker confronted him...A Coke he had the whole time and purchased before Stanton saw him...

Alan avoids the obvious, that the 1st FBI report avoided mention of the lunch room encounter exactly for the same reason Baker did...They were unsure whether or not to mention it because they knew it exonerated Oswald...


The Stanton witnessing thread posted by Hargrove where he posted my interview has now been hijacked by Bart Kamp and is now being diverted to Kamp's unchallenged Prayer Man rubbish...That is what the Education Forum moderation thinks is fair...The moderation there is "happy with the current state of affairs on the forum" while a researcher is kept from responding to his own discovery and material... 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 22, 2018, 12:15:02 AM
I truly believe that all early statements and/or affidavits were processed with caution, as well they should have been. Far too often, statements were made, and not heard correctly, and then mis-statements were repeated. For that reason, caution was needed in order to try and avoid giving incorrect testimony. And, later statements/testimony, after thorough review, were in all likelihood more accurate than first day affidavits.
Unfortunately, those that promote the absolutely unlikely LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory appear to have no desire, and less regard, for the true and accurate facts about the TSBD stairs/landing occupants as filmed at or just after the DealeyPlaza assassination of JFK Sr, and wounding of JBC Jr.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 22, 2018, 03:17:54 AM
Unlike some folks, especially those that appear to be playing some stupid game while discussing the assassination of USP JohnKennedySr, and wounding of TxG JohnConnallyJr, I remember the events in Dallas, TX on 11/22/'63, as the reports began being broadcast by radio shortly after 12:30pm, CST. And, it was a real life, and in real time event, as arguably the most powerful man in the free world was murdered while under US SecretService protection, flanked by DPD MotorcycleOfficers, just seconds after passing by and turning in front of the Dallas County Sheriff's Office, and while following a pilot car occupied by the CountySheriff and CityPoliceChief.

The reports were ambiguous and confusing, as chaos was apparent. My teacher, classmates, nor myself could immediately know and understand exactly what was happening and why, as well as the ramifications unfolding. And 2 days later, just as it looked as though some settling down was occurring, LeeOswald was murdered while in police custody.

Needless to say, anxiety was rampant and not easily controlled, but mostly manageable with effort and understanding.

In any event, some early misstatements should have been expected, and reviewed later for thought confirmation. So, a real time, real life event that effects forever, and not a made for TV movie, with rehearsals and retakes for perfection.

The reliable provable evidence that PrayerPersonImage did not represent LeeOswald has been presented, and no evidence has been presented to make the LeeOswald/PrayerManTheory provable. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 22, 2018, 12:08:31 PM

No, all it means is "just purchased" extends to the Stanton Coke and that he had gone to the 2nd floor lunch room to buy it...All it means is "2nd floor Coke when officer came in" means Oswald had a Coke on the 2nd floor when Baker confronted him...A Coke he had the whole time and purchased before Stanton saw him...

A coke he had bought - what? - 15 minutes earlier and had spent the intervening time staring at without drinking from? (Remember, Mrs Reid said the coke bottle was full). Uncredible!

Quote
Alan avoids the obvious, that the 1st FBI report avoided mention of the lunch room encounter exactly for the same reason Baker did...They were unsure whether or not to mention it because they knew it exonerated Oswald...

Don't be silly. They didn't mention it because it didn't exist yet. Only once the lunchroom fiction had taken shape was the interrogation report rewritten to reflect the new 'facts' of the case. Baker's "man walking away from the stairway" on the third or fourth floor became a man walking to the soda machine in the second floor lunchroom. On NO account could word be allowed to get out of LHO's purchase of a coke BEFORE the assassination because it would render nonsensical the official story. The suppression of Carolyn Arnold's story is the smoking gun here!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 22, 2018, 01:12:04 PM
In a white T-shirt. Baker had just seen him wearing a brown jacket.  ???

Yep, they goofed up!

Quote
And not including Geneva Hine in the "time trial".  Thumb1:

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 22, 2018, 04:38:24 PM
As a reminder for clarification, the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory cannot co-exist with the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter that occurred at about 12:31:00/12:32:00pm CST. However, testimony exists that confirms the SFLRE at said time, and PrayerPersonImage had just been filmed standing on the Elm St FirstFloorEntranceLanding.


Testimony:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 22, 2018, 05:18:22 PM
As a reminder for clarification, the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory cannot co-exist with the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter that occurred at about 12:31:00/12:32:00pm CST. However, testimony exists that confirms the SFLRE at said time, and PrayerPersonImage had just been filmed standing on the Elm St FirstFloorEntranceLanding.


Testimony:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

Sorry to see you're still playing catchup, Italics! We all know the testimony you reference. Unlike gullible you, however, we also know that testimony does not equal proof. The evolving story told by Baker & Truly is just that----------a story, an agreed narrative whose purpose was the elimination of LHO's alibi.

You still haven't answered my question, so I'll rewrite it in your language in hopes that this might facilitate comprehension on your side:

Do you, MrLarryTrotter, believe, as in lend credence to the claim, that MsSarahStanton, an employee of the TexasSchoolBookDepository, a concern whose salient building was located at 411ElmSt, that latter being a street in Dallas, that locality being a city of Texas, a State in the nation known as TheUnitedStatesofAmerica, saw one LeeHarveyOswald, the now deceased accused in the matter of the shooting of MrJohnFitzgeraldKennedy, USP, and the wounding of JohnConnally, Governor, at 12.30pm CST, a small number of minutes prior to said shooting at/near the recreational lunchroom on the second floor of said building holding what was identifiably a small bottle of 'coke' in his hand? For the record, and in the interests of provable research, I wish to state that by 'hand' is meant no more and no less than a 5-digit body part at the end of an arm.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 22, 2018, 06:49:41 PM
A coke he had bought - what? - 15 minutes earlier and had spent the intervening time staring at without drinking from? (Remember, Mrs Reid said the coke bottle was full). Uncredible!

Don't be silly. They didn't mention it because it didn't exist yet. Only once the lunchroom fiction had taken shape was the interrogation report rewritten to reflect the new 'facts' of the case. Baker's "man walking away from the stairway" on the third or fourth floor became a man walking to the soda machine in the second floor lunchroom. On NO account could word be allowed to get out of LHO's purchase of a coke BEFORE the assassination because it would render nonsensical the official story. The suppression of Carolyn Arnold's story is the smoking gun here!


Alan is taking over the thread now and reducing it to the one-line gotcha come-backs that Murphy cultists deal at...Alan ignores that I have proven Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton so therefore it becomes obvious that Oswald is back in the Depository...Most likely in the 2nd floor lunch room where all the known witnessing keeps placing him...

Alan ignores that Mrs Reid saw an Oswald with a white T-shirt...When Alan has trouble with the evidence he goes on the offensive and mocks people with laughing icons...Larry Trotter wisely calls this "playing some kind of stupid game"...Unless Oswald decided to strip down his brown shirt that would mean this is the second Oswald that Roger Craig saw...And it has to be a second Oswald because he departs from the Depository at a different time and in a different direction from the bus/taxi Oswald...DiEugenio stays quiet on this evidence because personal defamation will get you around it when you operate in a biased room...If Mrs Reid's Oswald had a full Coke it is very possible that it was because it was a second Oswald with a second Coke...When sound-bite Alan gets to dealing with the confirmed second Oswald seen by Roger Craig he goes to mockery icons...Alan isn't credible...From his style Alan is simply a Prayer Man propaganda zealot who is impervious to any contrary evidence and deals with such by ignoring it and turning up the shouts and emojies...

Alan has no evidence that the 2nd floor lunch room encounter is a hoax...All he has are the contrived re-arrangements of evidence by Parker, Murphy, and Kamp in order to get around the real way the evidence is flowing...In the end it is just Alan repeatedly shouting the encounter was a hoax against ever-building evidence it wasn't...Alan ignores that Truly told his wife about it on Friday night...Alan ignores that Baker did give mention to some kind of encounter in the affidavit and that it was most likely the lunch room encounter that Baker was making more vague exactly because its realness was a threat to the official story...The lunch room story smacks of a real encounter they tried to cover-up at first but then realized they couldn't get away with...

Alan is lying again...He is injecting that Baker said Oswald was walking to the soda machine when Baker never said any such thing...That is just Alan spinning the evidence which goes to show his level of honesty and lack of respect for the readers...Alan's not going far enough...Sure, no information could be let out about Oswald buying a Coke...But even worse, no information could be revealed that showed Oswald was in the lunch room where the Coke would only prove his presence there the whole time...Yes, the suppression of Carolyn Arnold's story that had nothing to do with any Coke but had everything to do with Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room where Baker & Truly saw him 6 minutes later...

Alan has full posting privileges on the Deep Politics board...A board run by Lemkin and Johnson where they are very particular about Deep Political thought...A board where Greg Parker was banned exactly because of trolling-like comments similar to what Alan offers here...Lauren banned Parker but when I told Lauren that DiEugenio was posting Parker's same type of material that he got banned for in the form of the Prayer Man garbage Lauren attacked me instead of honoring a valid site-rules based complaint (site rules that Lauren didn't seem to feel obliged to even recognize or apply to his dictator-like moderation)...The same Deep Politics board where the major discovery of new Oswald witnessing didn't even get mention due to the stifling gravity of the bullies who run the place...Some deep politics there eh?

An interesting thing arises here where Baker & Truly may have encountered a second Oswald at the 3rd floor staircase landing...
 

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 22, 2018, 07:04:21 PM

An interesting thing arises here where Baker & Truly may have encountered a second Oswald at the 3rd floor staircase landing... 

And there we have it! An admission from Brian that Baker's affidavit describes an encounter on a staircase landing higher than the 2nd floor. Now all Brian need do is drop the kooky Oswaldx2 garbage so that the reality can hit him...
--------------no encounter in the lunchroom!
--------------Baker changed his story!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 22, 2018, 07:06:59 PM

Stanton sees Oswald by the stairs in front of the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:18...Oswald goes to the Domino Room where he sees Norman and Jarman...Oswald walks back up to the 2nd floor lunch room where Carolyn Arnold sees him at 12:25...Baker & Truly see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:31:15...The long-sleeved lunch room Oswald descends the back staircase and exits the rear...He is seen by Frazier walking up Houston and crossing at Elm... Jeraldean Reid sees a second Oswald exit through the offices... Roger Craig sees the T-shirt Oswald get in the station wagon...


Over on the Education Forum the thread has been hijacked by Bart Kamp and the original topic filtered out so Bart can now host the thread while making trivial corrections on totally unrelated points (that are based on false claims that go unchallenged by the Prayer Man dominators)...The moderation sees this as "very happy with the current state of affairs on the forum"... Geesh...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 22, 2018, 07:23:52 PM
Sorry to see you're still playing catchup, Italics! We all know the testimony you reference. Unlike gullible you, however, we also know that testimony does not equal proof. The evolving story told by Baker & Truly is just that----------a story, an agreed narrative whose purpose was the elimination of LHO's alibi.

You still haven't answered my question, so I'll rewrite it in your language in hopes that this might facilitate comprehension on your side:

Do you, MrLarryTrotter, believe, as in lend credence to the claim, that MsSarahStanton, an employee of the TexasSchoolBookDepository, a concern whose salient building was located at 411ElmSt, that latter being a street in Dallas, that locality being a city of Texas, a State in the nation known as TheUnitedStatesofAmerica, saw one LeeHarveyOswald, the now deceased accused in the matter of the shooting of MrJohnFitzgeraldKennedy, USP, and the wounding of JohnConnally, Governor, at 12.30pm CST, a small number of minutes prior to said shooting at/near the recreational lunchroom on the second floor of said building holding what was identifiably a small bottle of 'coke' in his hand? For the record, and in the interests of provable research, I wish to state that by 'hand' is meant no more and no less than a 5-digit body part at the end of an arm.
And how does your question relate to the post, that you, Ford, quoted, which referenced testimony by ML Baker and RS Truly?
Before you make "answer demands", you might review this thread to confirm you have answered questions, appropriately, that were asked of you, AlanFord.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 22, 2018, 09:33:52 PM
Oswald walks back up to the 2nd floor lunch room where Carolyn Arnold sees him at 12:25...Baker & Truly see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:31:15...

But Baker's testimony puts LHO outside the lunchroom when Baker first sees him! What do you believe LHO was doing outside the lunchroom?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 22, 2018, 09:40:23 PM
And how does your question relate to the post, that you, Ford, quoted, which referenced testimony by ML Baker and RS Truly?
Before you make "answer demands", you might review this thread to confirm you have answered questions, appropriately, that were asked of you, AlanFord.


Sarah Stanton's sighting of LHO with a coke before the assassination blows a gaping wide hole in the story told to the Warren Commission by Baker & Truly.

Before you make "further contributions" to this thread you might review your inability to offer anything beyond banal restatements of your LNerish sentiment 'I trust witness statements and testimony and deplore any attempt to examine them critically'!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 22, 2018, 09:45:26 PM


Take a look at the Education Forum for a classic example of a thread hijack...Because of brutish censorship I can't respond to the false information the hijackers are using to divert the thread from the original subject matter...It is not a mistake that this is happening...The persons doing it are doing so intentionally to avoid addressing the proof shown in the original post that they don't want to admit overturns their previous Prayer Man claims...

DiEugenio is a stickler for people going off topic at the Education Forum and is usually the first to complain and first to be served by the moderators in getting the thread back on topic...The strategy of making up lies as the reason for banning someone who disproves the Prayer Man theory is being used very effectively and the hypocrisy is in full bloom on the EF...


 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 22, 2018, 09:52:53 PM

Take a look at the Education Forum for a classic example of a thread hijack...Because of brutish censorship I can't respond to the false information the hijackers are using to divert the thread from the original subject matter...It is not a mistake that this is happening...The persons doing it are doing so intentionally to avoid addressing the proof shown in the original post that they don't want to admit overturns their previous Prayer Man claims...

DiEugenio is a stickler for people going off topic at the Education Forum and is usually the first to complain and first to be served by the moderators in getting the thread back on topic...The strategy of making up lies as the reason for banning someone who disproves the Prayer Man theory is being used very effectively and the hypocrisy is in full bloom on the EF...


Take heart, Brian, and be serene in the assurance that your contribution to the Prayer Man discussion has not gone unnoticed...
-------------You have euthanised the SarahStanton=PrayerMan theory by showing us a contemporary photo of Sarah Stanton
-------------You have found crucial corroboration for Carolyn Arnold's sighting of LHO in the lunchroom before the shooting, a key element of the original Prayer Man theory!
 8)
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 22, 2018, 10:00:37 PM
But Baker's testimony puts LHO outside the lunchroom when Baker first sees him! What do you believe LHO was doing outside the lunchroom?


Oswald was in the vestibule window because he was watching the stairway while at the same time obeying his orders to be in the 2nd floor lunch room...He probably heard Truly shouting for the elevator and wanted to see what was going on...He was probably doing the same thing he was doing when Stanton saw him...

Because Prayer Man researchers have dominated the subject with their myopic tunnel vision they have prevented some very simple detective analysis from being done to Baker's witnessing...I think Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule window watching the landing and when Baker appeared Oswald flinched away and Baker caught the evasive flinch and pursued him like any good cop would...Alan, you notice dodgy language in witnesses...Please look at Baker's evasive language in describing how he noticed Oswald at the Commission hearing...Baker was hiding the fact he saw Oswald standing there looking which means Oswald was set-up and stationary and therefore not just rushing in to the lunch room from the 6th floor...Baker avoided detailing this and the flinching away because the plotters knew they gave the game away as to Oswald's being there the whole time...The same reason they omitted Stanton and Carolyn Arnold's witnessing...

I and being slandered and called "too insulting" by persons who have seized control of the research internet and used that lie to censor me...A skilled analyst like myself should be protected from those social media types and the damage they do to the best analyses...

 
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 22, 2018, 10:06:27 PM
-------------You have euthanised the SarahStanton=PrayerMan theory by showing us a contemporary photo of Sarah Stanton

Which is why you are going to further prove that by asking Kamp to add the forearm in that contemporary photo to his blow-up of Prayer Man's forearm that he posted in that same thread...

Sure Alan, and you are not deliberately ignoring the 5 foot 5 height of Prayer Man that perfectly matches Stanton's height, or the perfectly matching hips...

Maybe Jim DiEugenio will ask Kamp why he omitted juxtaposing Sarah's forearm next to the excellent blow-up of Prayer Man's forearm that he posted?

Nice troll!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 22, 2018, 10:09:37 PM

I think Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule window watching the landing and when Baker appeared Oswald flinched away and Baker caught the evasive flinch and pursued him like any good cop would...

But Baker thought the shots had come from the ROOF! Why would he waste his time going after a man just one floor up? Crazy!!

The reason he said LHO was already mobile when he first saw him through the glass door was he had to make the new story conform somehow to his original 'a man walking away from the stairway' statement.

I agree with you about Baker's language. His testimony is a lie. The footage of Baker & LHO in the DPD hallway on the Saturday which Barry Pollard has discovered also tells its own story. Baker's head goes down
-------------he doesn't want LHO to recognise him!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 22, 2018, 10:16:08 PM

Oswald was in the vestibule window because he was watching the stairway while at the same time obeying his orders to be in the 2nd floor lunch room...He probably heard Truly shouting for the elevator and wanted to see what was going on...He was probably doing the same thing he was doing when Stanton saw him...

So you're saying LHO lied when he said he was on the first floor when the President passed the building? And disobeyed his orders by going down to the domino room for no specific reason?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 22, 2018, 11:39:07 PM
As discussed for some years now, sufficient evidence places LeeHarveyOswald on the 2nd floor as the motorcade drove past the TSBD. Why did you make a non-provable statement?
Why did BuellWesleyFrazier not testify that he saw LeeHarveyOswald on the landing as filmed at/or near the time of the assassination? Why did any known stairs/landing portal area occupant not testify that they had seen LeeHarveyOswald among them on the stairs/landing as filmed at/or near the time of the assassination? Why did LeeHarveyOswald not testify that he was the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, as the assassination occurred?


There's enough of the same circumstantial evidence that puts LHO behind the barrel of a rifle on the sixth and I have trouble believing you dismiss it all after what you wrote in this thread about "reliable evidence". I note also, that you didn't actually say you believe he was on the 2nd floor, so "sufficient" enough for you, as well as others?

Why wouldn't BWF say so? Well in a normal conversation that could be reasoned out, with examples of questioning tactics of the police and even the DPD specifically, the malleability of our memories and historic examples of witnesses convieniently forgeting things that were crucial to the prosecution or defense, perhaps I could make an interesting case, but with someone who's already made clear he needs no help, why should I bother now? BWF was in a world of trouble, arrested and interigated for/and hours after they already had their man, he said it himself in the Gary Mack interview almost in tears, he went to work that day a boy and went to sleep that night man(he was thinking about what happened to him, not JFK), never understanding what he did that made the DPD treat him that way. A nineteen year old, offering their prime suspect an alibli, he must have been mistaken and I'm sure they'd have little trouble persuading him of that and "lying" doesn't even come into it.

Why wouldn't LHO say it? Perhaps he did, I cannot be sure but when he was here, IF he was there, just like BWF he witnessed no shooting and was himself back upstairs before Baker IMHO.

Finally, why would I make an unprovable statement? That's exactly what I responded to, welcome to our planet.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 22, 2018, 11:43:16 PM
Theory!

In Wiegman we see LHO, facing forward, raising a sandwich to his mouth with his RIGHT hand (if you look closely you see the left hand does NOT go up)...

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)   

? and in Darnell we see him with his arms folded, still facing forward but with head turned east, the sandwich/wrapper still in his RIGHT hand, only that hand is tucked under his left elbow and the protrusion of the sandwich/wrapper is giving the MISLEADING impression of being his left forearm! (The way to see this is to cover up the purported left forearm, take in the image of LHO with arms folded, and then return the purported left forearm to the image. It's quite startling!)

(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 23, 2018, 01:10:19 AM
That sandwich wrapper would would have to be made of some very shining material IMO Alan, comparing it to his arms in Wiegman, something ultra reflective,  I guess I'm still comfortable with the bottle or white china mug argument which he could have put down in the preceeding 20s or so. Also I considered your folded arms scenario even doing what you asked and covering up his "left hand" but I don't see it yet. The stabilized footage has him, for me, moving his arms/hands perhaps unwrapping something but since every part of him is moving due of the quality of what we have avaliable, I'm not very sure about that either.

Unrelated but relative.
Since Brian mentioned it at least three times here and concluded that it was another "death nail" before anyone(me and not everyone) knew what he was referring to I have to say it at least once, especially since his analysis is the one we're all suppposed to rely on. Someone drew a picture of a slim Oswald and placed it over PM, I like it but Brian mistook the drawing for a real image and concluded that PM could not be LHO. That's the strength of his analysis, major errors can enter into his enthusiastic approach at any time.
Now regarding what the author of this drawing wrote, he sees a slim Oswald with a reflection in the glass, making us all see a wider person, well, if you put him in a position so that his reflection is seen in that glass from Darnell's POV then he's on the landing, too short and most probably not LHO. I have no problem with just an oversized shirt, don't see any wide hips, or anyway too big to be LHO or any unaccounted for male of similar size stood with one foot down, or even a shorter one on the landing.
Like Michael said, I too would love it to be him and I wouldn't up and leave the case like someone else suggested he would.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 23, 2018, 02:03:02 AM
This was the image that in which I think Linda Zambinini found Pauline Sanders, wasn't posted in full here, not convinced it's a woman at all but from my previous mistakes it could still be, anyway worth a look.
Come home a dollar short in your wages and face this commitee.
The Iris mafia.
(https://i.imgur.com/1zzSGEZ.png)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Joe Kulik on June 23, 2018, 02:23:35 AM
No offense intended, but I find your discussion of "Prayer Woman" to be quite trivial.  You seem to start with the unwarranted assumption that the identity of this person is even somehow important to the topic of the JFK assassination.  But is that necessarily so ?  There were thousands of people on the street at the time, the vast majority of whom hold no importance to the assassination.  What is most probable, therefore, is that this obscure person is just another unidentifiable spectator in the crowd, and nothing more.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 23, 2018, 03:05:09 AM
No offense intended, but I find your discussion of "Prayer Woman" to be quite trivial.  You seem ...
Whose discussion?
There are 530 other posts in this thread.
Can you quote the one that you are referring to?
 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 05:41:04 AM
But Baker thought the shots had come from the ROOF! Why would he waste his time going after a man just one floor up? Crazy!!

The reason he said LHO was already mobile when he first saw him through the glass door was he had to make the new story conform somehow to his original 'a man walking away from the stairway' statement.

I agree with you about Baker's language. His testimony is a lie. The footage of Baker & LHO in the DPD hallway on the Saturday which Barry Pollard has discovered also tells its own story. Baker's head goes down
-------------he doesn't want LHO to recognise him!


Don't play dumb Alan...Because he saw Oswald flinch away and Oswald had a particularly guilty look when he flinched because he was a spook and agent provocateur who had more to him than met the eye...Don't play dumb Alan...We both know who and what Oswald was and Oswald telegraphed that to Baker whose cop instincts picked right up on it...That's exactly my point...Why would Baker go after someone on the 2nd floor?...The answer is because that person did something to draw Baker's suspicion and that something was flinching away from the vestibule window and withdrawing into the lunch room...Baker gets fuzzy on exactly how he noticed Oswald because he can't tell the Commission that Oswald was calmly standing behind the vestibule door window watching the landing...He can't do that because that would make it too clear Oswald had not just ran down from the Sniper's Nest right in front of Baker & Truly...

Alan, the reason Baker describes seeing Oswald on the move is because Oswald was on the move when he flinched away from the window after seeing a cop appear on the landing...When you tell Alan that Truly told his wife of the encounter friday night he ignores it...

The correct interpretation of Baker's body language when he sees Oswald at the police station is Baker knows Oswald is on the inside and is undergoing a false arrest while maintaining cover...What I see in Baker is someone who knows Oswald is one of their own who is nodding his head both in respect and shame that he was involved in witnessing that proved Oswald's innocence...He knows Oswald's not guilty because he knows he saw Oswald in the lunch room and that he was there the whole time and not on the 6th floor...It's very simple and a very easily interpreted body language Alan...Baker feels guilty so he hangs his head because he knows he witnessed Oswald's innocence in the lunch room...

Wait a minute Alan...How could Oswald recognize Baker if the lunch room encounter never happened?


Alan shows all the classic earmarks of trolling...He snips off one point and aggressively answers it with a question...He does this with every post...We can review this thread and Alan chops off 90% of your evidence and then picks a low hanging fruit to ask a baited question over...By using this classic trolling technique Alan self-creates the illusion that he is controlling the narrative when in fact he's left most of the pertinent evidence unanswered and ignored...You can even call Alan a troll outright and he'll ignore it and continue on unphased...Serious researchers offering serious input wouldn't let you call them a troll if they are sincere in what they were posting...


   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 05:50:21 AM
You KNOW that Sarah Stanton can't be PrayerPerson, otherwise you wouldn't have speculated that she wore a wig or dyed her hair!! The only other person who still thinks Sarah=PrayerPerson is Italics Trotter, but he'll believe anything.


You're not playing chess according to the rules Alan...If Kamp had placed Sarah's chubby forearm next to the very good blow-up of Prayer Man's forearm he posted on the Education Forum its exact resemblance would be apparent...Bart Kamp could post over here if he liked...He doesn't because he knows he would be instantly shredded...Bart and Jim D only post where they can get cowardly moderators to ban the opposition where they know the opposing evidence will be filtered...

You are outright ignoring that Buell Frazier already made it clear Prayer Man is Sarah...You know as well as I do that wide-hipped Sarah is nowhere else on the landing...We both know Kamp avoided placing Sarah's forearm next to Prayer Man's because he already knew what it would show...

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 06:10:54 AM
Theory!

In Wiegman we see LHO, facing forward, raising a sandwich to his mouth with his RIGHT hand (if you look closely you see the left hand does NOT go up)...

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)   

? and in Darnell we see him with his arms folded, still facing forward but with head turned east, the sandwich/wrapper still in his RIGHT hand, only that hand is tucked under his left elbow and the protrusion of the sandwich/wrapper is giving the MISLEADING impression of being his left forearm! (The way to see this is to cover up the purported left forearm, take in the image of LHO with arms folded, and then return the purported left forearm to the image. It's quite startling!)

(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)


The above are garbage observations...The correct interpretation is the limousine has gone by and Sarah can't see it anymore because of the west wall of the portal...So she looks in to her purse...If you look at the Davidson enhancement that honest Alan omits you can clearly see Sarah Stanton's face and she clearly has her purse in front of her face and is looking down in to it...

Of the two Wiegman frames the first one had her hands up by her face and looking in to the purse...In the second one her hands lower...

If you are a good photo analyst you will notice the sun illuminates Sarah's right elbow area of her forearm...That means the glowing hand is also illuminated by sun and is simply that - a hand glowing in sun because it is furthest forward and in to the sun/shade plane...For years this has been misinterpreted by researchers who lack photo analysis skill...And the left hand does go up too because it is also holding the purse...

In Darnell Prayer Man pivots to "his" left and faces Frazier...This was very apparent in the stabilized clip of all Prayer Man images in Wiegman and Darnell that was posted on this board over two years ago...Prayer Man pivots towards Frazier because "he" is Sarah Stanton who is reacting to Frazier asking her what Calvery said, as Frazier made more than clear in his 2013 video interview and honest Alan outright ignores...

Alan cannot be trusted for correct interpretation of evidence and always regresses to what Larry Trotter describes as his "stupid game"...

Honest Alan omits the Davidson enhancement that Duncan posted at the end of his original post...It shows the best version of the Wiegman clear frame above and there is no doubt it depicts Sarah Stanton peering in to her purse...


 
   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 23, 2018, 09:27:01 AM
That sandwich wrapper would would have to be made of some very shining material IMO Alan, comparing it to his arms in Wiegman, something ultra reflective,  I guess I'm still comfortable with the bottle or white china mug argument which he could have put down in the preceeding 20s or so.

Might be parchment paper, Barry, of the sort used to wrap sandwiches (from memory, there was some found in the Paine house). LHO is recorded as telling Captain Fritz he had a cheese sandwich and apple for lunch that day.


Quote
Also I considered your folded arms scenario even doing what you asked and covering up his "left hand" but I don't see it yet. The stabilized footage has him, for me, moving his arms/hands perhaps unwrapping something but since every part of him is moving due of the quality of what we have avaliable, I'm not very sure about that either.

That footage isn't stabilized. The wall moves as much as the hands because Darnell's camera is moving:

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Prayerstable.gif)

Taking a single frame makes it a bit easier to 'see' the folded arms idea:

(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)


Quote
Unrelated but relative.
Since Brian mentioned it at least three times here and concluded that it was another "death nail" before anyone(me and not everyone) knew what he was referring to I have to say it at least once, especially since his analysis is the one we're all suppposed to rely on. Someone drew a picture of a slim Oswald and placed it over PM, I like it but Brian mistook the drawing for a real image and concluded that PM could not be LHO. That's the strength of his analysis, major errors can enter into his enthusiastic approach at any time.
Now regarding what the author of this drawing wrote, he sees a slim Oswald with a reflection in the glass, making us all see a wider person, well, if you put him in a position so that his reflection is seen in that glass from Darnell's POV then he's on the landing, too short and most probably not LHO. I have no problem with just an oversized shirt, don't see any wide hips, or anyway too big to be LHO or any unaccounted for male of similar size stood with one foot down, or even a shorter one on the landing.
Like Michael said, I too would love it to be him and I wouldn't up and leave the case like someone else suggested he would.

I just can't see it being a reflection either. In one of the Allen photos a motorcycle cop's white helmet is reflected in the glass door and the reflection is dark. And yes, PrayerPerson's too far from the glass to cast a reflection like that (& what would the reflection be of??). He seems to me to be one step down.

Brian's approach certainly is "enthusiastic", but his incompetence is staggering!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 23, 2018, 09:30:03 AM
No offense intended, but I find your discussion of "Prayer Woman" to be quite trivial.  You seem to start with the unwarranted assumption that the identity of this person is even somehow important to the topic of the JFK assassination.  But is that necessarily so ?  There were thousands of people on the street at the time, the vast majority of whom hold no importance to the assassination.  What is most probable, therefore, is that this obscure person is just another unidentifiable spectator in the crowd, and nothing more.

Most improbable any non-TSBD person would have been amongst all those employees and gone unnoticed. A LOT of work has gone into establishing who's who up there and no one has been able to offer a realistic alternative candidate to LHO!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 23, 2018, 09:35:49 AM

Don't play dumb Alan...We both know who and what Oswald was

Well it would be easier for the rest of us to know who you think Oswald was if you stopped multiplying him by 2!

Quote
Wait a minute Alan...How could Oswald recognize Baker if the lunch room encounter never happened?

Anyone familiar with the original Prayer Man theory will feel their jaw drop to the floor all over again at the depth of ignorance revealed in your question. The theory stipulated that Baker encountered LHO on the FIRST floor! He was LHO's alibi! THAT's why we see him putting his head down in the DPD hallway footage!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 23, 2018, 09:38:20 AM

You're not playing chess according to the rules Alan...If Kamp had placed Sarah's chubby forearm next to the very good blow-up of Prayer Man's forearm he posted on the Education Forum its exact resemblance would be apparent...Bart Kamp could post over here if he liked...He doesn't because he knows he would be instantly shredded...Bart and Jim D only post where they can get cowardly moderators to ban the opposition where they know the opposing evidence will be filtered...

You are outright ignoring that Buell Frazier already made it clear Prayer Man is Sarah...You know as well as I do that wide-hipped Sarah is nowhere else on the landing...We both know Kamp avoided placing Sarah's forearm next to Prayer Man's because he already knew what it would show...

We don't need to worry about Sarah's forearm, Brian, her hair rules her out as PrayerPerson! If LHO had GRAY/WHITE hair in 1963 do you think we would even be talking about PrayerPerson?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 23, 2018, 09:41:58 AM

Honest Alan omits the Davidson enhancement that Duncan posted at the end of his original post...It shows the best version of the Wiegman clear frame above and there is no doubt it depicts Sarah Stanton peering in to her purse...


 :D

The only way that's a face is if 'she' is putting eye drops in!

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Enhancedchris.gif)

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)   


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 23, 2018, 10:27:09 AM
Brian, Repeat Request -  3rd Time Of Asking

Could you please ask contact Sarah's family again and record via Audio the question and answer to a simple question, ie, "Is the lady with the scarf Sarah Stanton?"

Do not ask any leading questions which might influence their conclusion, and include any pre and post question and answer conversations.

They know what she really looked like.

We, the members of this Forum, including yourself, don't know what she really looked like at various stages of her life from viewing just one photograph.

It's a simple request I am asking of you.

It is important to question everything.

There is no room for arrogance or personal ego to dictate what is investigated and what is not.

This is a viable question that requires a simple yes, no, or could be answer, irrespective of how good You, Me, Kamp, Stancac, the man on the Moon, or anyone else thinks they are at photo analysis.

If you refuse to do it, and it's your choice,  please let me know and send me via PM the contact details and I'll ask them the question myself.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Stantonface.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 23, 2018, 02:50:18 PM
Sarah Stanton's sighting of LHO with a coke before the assassination blows a gaping wide hole in the story told to the Warren Commission by Baker & Truly.

Before you make "further contributions" to this thread you might review your inability to offer anything beyond banal restatements of your LNerish sentiment 'I trust witness statements and testimony and deplore any attempt to examine them critically'!

In another AlanFord Edsel Effort, he has produced a post indicating a quote of something I supposedly said. I challenge him to produce a provable quote of me posting and/or making said statement.

As is a common practice, although I try very hard to discuss evidence, the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayermanTheory promoters have to resort to false claims, insults, and character assassination. Where is the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory reliable provable positive evidence?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 23, 2018, 03:09:42 PM
Brian, Repeat Request -  3rd Time Of Asking

Could you please ask contact Sarah's family again and record via Audio the question and answer to a simple question, ie, "Is the lady with the scarf Sarah Stanton?"

Do not ask any leading questions which might influence their conclusion, and include any pre and post question and answer conversations.

They know what she really looked like.

We, the members of this Forum, including yourself, don't know what she really looked like at various stages of her life from viewing just one photograph.

It's a simple request I am asking of you.

It is important to question everything.

There is no room for arrogance or personal ego to dictate what is investigated and what is not.

This is a viable question that requires a simple yes, no, or could be answer, irrespective of how good You, Me, Kamp, Stancac, the man on the Moon, or anyone else thinks they are at photo analysis.

If you refuse to do it, and it's your choice,  please let me know and send me via PM the contact details and I'll ask them the question myself.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Stantonface.gif)

If in fact the PrayerPersonImage and the ScarfLadyImage do represent different individuals, so be it. But, either way, it needs to be reviewed for conclusion.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 23, 2018, 04:22:55 PM
No offense intended, but I find your discussion of "Prayer Woman" to be quite trivial.  You seem to start with the unwarranted assumption that the identity of this person is even somehow important to the topic of the JFK assassination.  But is that necessarily so ?  There were thousands of people on the street at the time, the vast majority of whom hold no importance to the assassination.  What is most probable, therefore, is that this obscure person is just another unidentifiable spectator in the crowd, and nothing more.
In all fairness, PrayerPersonImage does not represent "this obscure person is just another unidentifiable spectator in the crowd, and nothing more". Without a doubt, the image represents a real person that has a name, and is important. The actual identification has been indicated, but was not an issue relative to the topic of the JFK Assassination, prior to someone deciding that the image represented accused LoneGunmanAssassin LeeHarveyOswald, simply due to their image interpretation and because no evidence had so far established the image to represent anyone else.

However, theirs is not provable reliable evidence that places LeeHarveyOswald in the place of PrayerPersonImage as filmed, just after the assassination of JohnKennedySr and wounding of JohnConnallyJr. And actually, the provable evidence indicates otherwise.

That said, to me the question should be for the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManImage promoters to explain, "why"?
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 04:34:27 PM
Anyone familiar with the original Prayer Man theory will feel their jaw drop to the floor all over again at the depth of ignorance revealed in your question. The theory stipulated that Baker encountered LHO on the FIRST floor! He was LHO's alibi! THAT's why we see him putting his head down in the DPD hallway footage!

Ah ha...Sure...Baker encountered Oswald in the foyer and the many people who ducked-in to the Depository at the same time all missed him? Oh, wait...I remember now...The men in black made them all stay quiet...

The Oswald in the utility closet seen by Campbell was minutes later after Campbell had gone to the Knoll...Prayer Man cultists ignore the timing of this Oswald, or the fact he would be hanging in the lobby unwitnessed by anyone else for several minutes, and try to conflate him with an imaginary witnessing by Baker of Oswald in the lobby that Parker and Murphy invented out of thin air and persons like Alan are now referencing as fact and calling those who question it "ignorant"...

I have been posting for years that since Prayer Man is still on the landing in Couch/Darnell that, hypothetically, if Prayer Man were Oswald he would have ducked back into the lobby right about the same time as Baker if Baker were to theoretically encounter him in the lobby...If you run this scenario through it means Oswald would have to squeeze through the entrance right along with several other people including Baker...Prayer Man lunatics ignore this necessary scenario and simply suggest their Prayer Man script without ever owning up to the impossibility of how their suggestions would necessarily have to play out...Oswald would have so much exposure to witnesses at that point that it would be impossible for him to not have been noticed by many more witnesses, including Truly...Prayer Man nuts hold firm on Carolyn Arnold glimpsing Oswald in the foyer from way out front but then equally hold that many people mingled with Oswald in the foyer after the shots and no one mentioned it...You can see the awareness of the Prayer Man cultists of this in the fact they try to stall Baker from entering by suggesting he didn't go straight in...Just like with the lunch room encounter, when the Prayer Man cultists are aware the evidence is going against them Parker gets out his evidence-revising magic wand and starts making major revisions of the core evidence to try to slip his nutty Prayer Man theory through the evidence barriers he is aware refutes it...This crazy theory has now become a membership requirement of the Conspiracy community overseen by mob boss Jim DiEugenio who directs the censorship of those who call him out on this nutty-ness by lesser heads who do Jim's dirty work for him in order to compensate for their own lack of ability...





     
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Frederick Clements on June 23, 2018, 04:38:06 PM
The thing is that Doyle has some grudge against the members of another forum.That forum is a strong Prayer Man supporter. So Doyle just to be contrary claims that it is not Oswald and has latched on to the Prayer Woman idea. It has essentially nothing to do with PM or even the JFK case in general.Just  a personal grudge.

Fred
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 04:47:12 PM
Brian, Repeat Request -  3rd Time Of Asking

Could you please ask contact Sarah's family again and record via Audio the question and answer to a simple question, ie, "Is the lady with the scarf Sarah Stanton?"

Do not ask any leading questions which might influence their conclusion, and include any pre and post question and answer conversations.

They know what she really looked like.

We, the members of this Forum, including yourself, don't know what she really looked like at various stages of her life from viewing just one photograph.

It's a simple request I am asking of you.

It is important to question everything.

There is no room for arrogance or personal ego to dictate what is investigated and what is not.

This is a viable question that requires a simple yes, no, or could be answer, irrespective of how good You, Me, Kamp, Stancac, the man on the Moon, or anyone else thinks they are at photo analysis.

If you refuse to do it, and it's your choice,  please let me know and send me via PM the contact details and I'll ask them the question myself.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Stantonface.gif)

I'll do it Duncan but I seriously disagree...

I wish someone would please explain to me why we are using precious access time to ask these witnesses if a person who is on the landing 20 minutes after the shots, according to the time of the imagery, is their relative Sarah Stanton? The well known record has Stanton inside Westbrook's office "bull-pen" at that point being detained by the cops for statements...

There is no way that dark sleeve that goes half way up Scarf Lady's forearm would not be detectable in Darnell if Prayer Man were Scarf Lady...And the sheet white of her scarf would be impossible to not be seen in Darnell too...Can't be her Duncan - but I'll ask...Best done on a weekday...

But we do know what her height was and her waist thickness, forearm etc...We also know that Frazier located her as looking at him when Calvery was at the steps..In my opinion, no one who was seriously looking at the Prayer Man evidence would ignore the other evidence...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 05:04:36 PM
If in fact the PrayerPersonImage and the ScarfLadyImage do represent different individuals, so be it. But, either way, it needs to be reviewed for conclusion.

 
I disagree and think it has already been dismissed by the things I previously posted...Sarah Stanton is obviously Prayer Man and I think reviewing persons who are obviously not Stanton or Prayer Man is digressive and doesn't help...


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 23, 2018, 05:10:57 PM
The thing is that Doyle has some grudge against the members of another forum.That forum is a strong Prayer Man supporter. So Doyle just to be contrary claims that it is not Oswald and has latched on to the Prayer Woman idea. It has essentially nothing to do with PM or even the JFK case in general.Just  a personal grudge.

Fred

Excuse me sir, but I would suggest you investigate the subject before offering judgement.
Why is it being proposed that PrayerPersonImage represents LeeHarveyOswald?
Where is the evidence?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 05:55:14 PM
Unfortunately Brian, I have to disagree with you. I believe there is enough resemblance to warrant further investigation. And, as you should recall, I have held that conclusion for some time now. Therefor, I await satisfactory proof, either way.


   
Quote
I wish someone would please explain to me why we are using precious access time to ask these witnesses if a person who is on the landing 20 minutes after the shots, according to the time of the imagery, is their relative Sarah Stanton? The well known record has Stanton inside Westbrook's office "bull-pen" at that point being detained by the cops for statements...
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 06:52:29 PM
Quote
The bottom line with the Stanton interview, is that Sarah Stanton was interacting with Oswald by the stairs of the 2nd floor before the motorcade passed by and she saw him with a soda.

Brian Doyle has been having huge problems the past week refuting Alan Ford's clear cut statements and my evidence which annihilate his little pet theory. Add on he scored a couple of own goals.....


I'm having trouble understanding what this somewhat inarticulate statement is trying to say?...By always being on the attack and always claiming to be winning the debate Bart avoids answering that Ford, whose style should alert most people to his credibility, endorses Carolyn Arnold's witnessing of Oswald in the lunch room...Endorsement of Ford alone should be grounds for self-destruction of credibility...

Even though Kamp went immediately for the cheap shots when my interview was posted, claiming it was a bad way to do an interview, I see he now accepts what was uncovered in the interview and credits me for it...The issue then is exactly when Sarah saw Oswald and, if she was going out with a group, why the others didn't? If you look at the testimonies of the office workers the general time mentioned for leaving was somewhere around 12:15 to 12:20 or so...There's nothing overtly clashing with assuming Stanton saw Oswald around 12:18...This means Oswald was in the lunch room buying a Coke at this time...We can safely assume some things from this...At 12:18 or even later Oswald was oriented towards being in or near the lunch room and having a Coke...



Quote
Yet at the same time with one of these own goals he has brought forward that Oswald bought his coke for his lunch. The fact that he stated that Oswald was not going to go out but inside to the place he worked unequivocally shows that Oswald was not having lunch in the second floor lunch room, no Lee nor Harvey (another "escape excuse" used by Doyle).


Bart is ignoring that Rosa, Sarah's daughter in law, specifically recalled Sarah saying she asked Oswald are you going downstairs to see the president? Since Sarah worked in the 2nd floor offices we can assume she encountered Oswald by the stairway landing to the 2nd floor in front of the doorway to the lunch room...

Kamp is not honestly reflecting what I wrote and he is being assisted by the oppressive censorship of the Education Forum moderation in misrepresenting what is being shown here...If you listen to time mark 5:42 of the interview Rosa says Sarah asked Oswald "Are you going UP to lunch?"...Oswald responded "No, I'm going back in my room"...What Kamp doesn't know is Wanda (the grand daughter) is old enough to have heard Sarah tell her story...Wanda told me she thought she heard Sarah say she saw Oswald in a break room...Kamp is avoiding inputting Carolyn Arnold's witnessing of Oswald after Stanton where Arnold saw Oswald in the lunch room itself...Kamp ignores a clear reality staring him in the face that Oswald was set up and eating lunch in the lunch room, as Carolyn Arnold witnessed, and that Stanton's witnessing corroborates this...5:42 is very important...It shows that Oswald told Sarah that he wasn't going upstairs he was going back into the break room where Carolyn Arnold would see him shortly after...Listen closely...Rosa doesn't say "out" she says "up"...


Quote
Take another look at Ochus Campbell's SS statement, and read with regards the 2nd floor.


Kamp is trying to force a witnessing that occurred minutes after the shots, after Campbell had gone to the Knoll and back, as occurring at the time of the lunch room encounter...These are the twists of the evidence upon which the Prayer Man theory was born...Kamp also excludes the fact we have witnessing of two Oswald's being at the Depository...


Quote
Carolyn Arnold's statement that she went back for a glass of water has already been undermined not only by the statements of others (leaving together as a group or leaving later and not seeing Oswald in the lunch room), but also due to Gary Murr's scan of the 2nd floor.


When you post that there is actually some metal object visible on the far right side of the lunch room counter and that it might be a small tap Kamp ignores it...The coffee makers had to be filled somewhere...Kamp shows no interest in finding out...

Arnold was pregnant and waited to go out late because she didn't want to stand too long while pregnant...Her story makes sense as far as seeing Oswald alone for a drink only she needed...Her story makes sense because we now have a second witness who put Oswald nearby just prior...



Quote
Add on Roy Lewis' statement that workers were not to have lunch in the 2nd fl lunch room.


I would like people to note that Kamp has had the references to co-workers testifying that Oswald ate in the 2nd floor lunch room regularly, and was seen doing so by several employees like Westbrook and Jacob, told to him repeatedly yet he still goes back to the false claim that Oswald was not allowed to eat there...Oswald was not a regular worker...He was a CIA spook that Colonel Byrd employee Roy Truly knew was an exception...It is clear Kamp is consciously avoiding admitting that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room that day like he often was...


Quote
Doyle demands that I juxtapose Stanton's forearm over the Prayer Man photo I showed, he wants me to be Jack White and stretch things to a believable result..... a more than 300 pound woman with grey hair..........sure. Doyle shows his lack of skill when it comes to photographic matters.


Says Kamp while avoiding simply doing so...The Education Forum is amazing because if anyone else dared mock the fact he refused to compare obvious evidence and still refused to do so even after discussing it, they would be heckled and called-out on it...Not so with the Prayer Man bullies where such a patently dishonest move is left unchallenged and a comparison that would instantly show a scientific matching of the two images is allowed to not be shown...Easier to ban the opposition I guess...


Quote
I know where Sarah went, having a good look down Elm after the shots had been fired. Look how short that woman is in comparison with the woman below her to her right and Ruth Dean and Maddie Reese who stood way lower on those steps


Again, the Education Forum allows Kamp to show open contempt for Buell Frazier's detailed description of Sarah being up on the landing and back in the shadows - neither of which fits Kamp's ridiculous choice for Stanton who is not only down the steps behind Frazier but in bright sun...Kamp's choice is the desperate attempt to get around the Prayer Man evidence that it is...If we then go to Frazier's description of Sarah's location we see Prayer Man fits it to a T...All OK to ignore on the Education Forum while hijacking the subject to irrelevant Prayer Man minutia...

Kamp outright ignores the timing of Gloria Calvery that has Frazier looking at her at that instant...Mark Knight ignores that this isn't speculation since Frazier says "looking at"...

I forgot to mention: I think Oswald may have seen Jarman and Norman going up the staircase and was never in the Domino Room...Oswald knew they had to come through the back door to get there...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 23, 2018, 08:07:21 PM
Ah ha...Sure...Baker encountered Oswald in the foyer and the many people who ducked-in to the Depository at the same time all missed him? That's not what the original Prayer Man Oh, wait...I remember now...The men in black made them all stay quiet...

How many people saw and testified to LHO's exit from the Depository building? None! Does that mean LHO never left the building and his skeleton is still in there?

Quote
The Oswald in the utility closet seen by Campbell was minutes later after Campbell had gone to the Knoll...

Yes, and that's exactly what the original Prayer Man theory, of which you know little or nothing, stated! Baker raced up the entrance steps, asked LHO if he worked there (as he, Baker, wanted someone to show him to the stairs), then Truly stepped up and took over. (Read Harry Holmes's testimony!) At some point AFTER that, LHO was noticed in a small storage room on the ground floor!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 23, 2018, 08:17:40 PM
How many people saw and testified to LHO's exit from the Depository building? None! Does that mean LHO never left the building and his skeleton is still in there?

Yes, and that's exactly what the original Prayer Man theory, of which you know little or nothing, stated! Baker raced up the entrance steps, asked LHO if he worked there (as he, Baker, wanted someone to show him to the stairs), then Truly stepped up and took over. (Read Harry Holmes's testimony!) At some point AFTER that, LHO was noticed in a small storage room on the ground floor!

HarryHolmes Testimony:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 08:31:43 PM
Quote
How many people saw and testified to LHO's exit from the Depository building? None! Does that mean LHO never left the building and his skeleton is still in there?


There's good reason to think both Oswald's exited the rear...There was a woman witness to Roger Craig's Oswald who said he came from the rear of the building...Frazier said his Oswald came from the rear exit up Houston...This would make sense since there is also witnessing to Oswald being told to wait at the front door...


Quote
Yes, and that's exactly what the original Prayer Man theory, of which you know little or nothing, stated! Baker raced up the entrance steps, asked LHO if he worked there (as he, Baker, wanted someone to show him to the stairs), then Truly stepped up and took over. (Read Harry Holmes's testimony!) At some point AFTER that, LHO was noticed in a small storage room on the ground floor!


Again, you are asserting your very loose interpretation while ignoring everything I just wrote...It is plain silly to suggest Baker confronted Oswald on the front steps without being seen by the dozens of witnesses seen in Darnell...You ignore the exposure your nutty claim requires to Oswald being seen...Anyone can see you avoid providing specific detail as to exactly where this occurred exactly because you are aware of this serious conflict...

Holmes wasn't there...Like Biffle, he mixed up second hand information...However Holmes did accurately record Oswald coming "downstairs" to the lobby (which means he was upstairs in the lunch room before doing so)...

There is nothing behind your allegation that Baker confronted Oswald on the steps or in the lobby besides you saying so...Again - we are only discussing this because some uncredible minds were trying to make excuses for the real encounter that happened on the 2nd floor...




Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 23, 2018, 08:59:15 PM

There's good reason to think both Oswald's exited the rear...

Both Oswalds?  :D

Not a single person testified to seeing LHO exit the building--------
he wasn't famous yet!
Geddit now, Brian?

Quote
It is plain silly to suggest Baker confronted Oswald on the front steps without being seen by the dozens of witnesses seen in Darnell...

Baker confronted LHO? Not what I said! Re-read my last post  :-[

Quote
Holmes wasn't there...

Of course not, but unlike you or me he was at one of the interrogations! He clearly remembered LHO saying the encounter with the police officer happened on the FIRST floor, at the FRONT ENTRANCE or in the VESTIBULE. It just so happens we have a LHO-resembling man up on the entrance steps at the time Baker is heading for the entrance. Folks have spent the last FIVE YEARS trying and failing miserably to identify him as AnyoneButOswald! Now here's a thought: maybe it IS Oswald...  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 09:23:00 PM


Quote
Not a single person testified to seeing LHO exit the building--------
he wasn't famous yet!
Geddit now, Brian?


Except for Frazier and the woman who saw Roger Craig's Oswald...



Quote
Baker confronted LHO? Not what I said! Re-read my last post  :-[


"Baker raced up the entrance steps, asked LHO if he worked there (as he, Baker, wanted someone to show him to the stairs), then Truly stepped up and took over."

Confronting your trolling isn't worth my time...Alan resorts to the ignoring my point about the number of people who would have witnessed this and goes right to the aggressive question asking in order to avoid the point method of classic trolls...



Quote
Of course not, but unlike you or me he was at one of the interrogations! He clearly remembered LHO saying the encounter with the police officer happened on the FIRST floor, at the FRONT ENTRANCE or in the VESTIBULE. It just so happens we have a LHO-resembling man up on the entrance steps at the time Baker is heading for the entrance. Folks have spent the last FIVE YEARS trying and failing miserably to identify him as AnyoneButOswald! Now here's a thought: maybe it IS Oswald...  Thumb1:


You are not accurately relating the witnessing...The encounter you are referring to was when Oswald came down from the lunch room where he was encountered by Baker and was once again confronted by police who were guarding the front door and did not let him leave..."2nd floor lunch when officer came in"...

The "vestibule" is the small enclosure over the lunch room...Nowhere is the lobby or foyer ever referred to as vestibule...That is an invention of Bart Kamp who is trying to reverse nomenclature to make his dishonest theory work...

There's no reason to take the ignoring of the evidence that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton seriously...

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 23, 2018, 09:36:41 PM


Except for Frazier and the woman who saw Roger Craig's Oswald...

Show us their testimony, Brian!


Quote
"Baker raced up the entrance steps, asked LHO if he worked there (as he, Baker, wanted someone to show him to the stairs), then Truly stepped up and took over."

Exactly! Not a confrontation
-----------Baker simply wanted someone to show him to the nearest stairs!

Quote
You are not accurately relating the witnessing...The encounter you are referring to was when Oswald came down from the lunch room where he was encountered by Baker and was once again confronted by police who were guarding the front door and did not let him leave..."2nd floor lunch when officer came in"...

Wrong. Holmes puts the Baker-Truly-LHO lunchroom encounter in the correct location
-----------front entrance/vestibule!

Quote
The "vestibule" is the small enclosure over the lunch room...Nowhere is the lobby or foyer ever referred to as vestibule...That is an invention of Bart Kamp who is trying to reverse nomenclature to make his dishonest theory work...

Well then it must be an invention of all the modern English dictionaries too!
Vestibule = front lobby, foyer of a building

Quote
There's no reason to take the ignoring of the evidence that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton seriously...

I agree, it's obvious that all the Prayer Man images of Sarah Stanton have been photoshopped by the evil Jim di Eugenio to make her hair look the WRONG COLOR!
 :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 23, 2018, 10:06:47 PM
Back to the first FBI interrogation report!

OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the Coca?Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca?Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building.

Two very weird omissions here...
1--------------------NADA about an encounter with a police officer
2--------------------NADA about where exactly on the first floor LHO claimed to have been

Together, Sarah Stanton and Harry Holmes EXPLAIN these omissions...
1+2-------------------LHO told Captain Fritz he bought a coke in the second floor lunchroom BEFORE the shooting, came downstairs, was on the first floor at the time of the shooting and had an encounter with a policeman at or near the front entrance VERY SHORTLY after it. This caused panic! The investigators didn't know what to do with the policeman encounter because they knew it gave the Commie suspect his alibi! So the first report had to fudge the issue?

By the time of the next report, the Commie suspect was dead and a solution of sorts had been found: Let's put the encounter in the second floor lunchroom!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 10:29:43 PM
Wrong. Holmes puts the Baker-Truly-LHO lunchroom encounter in the correct location
-----------front entrance/vestibule!


He says while ignoring the finer, truer context and resorting to intelligence-insulting shouts...
You're done Alan...You're in contempt of the fact no one ever referenced the front lobby as "vestibule" except Kamp because he was trying to distort the testimony and bend it to fit his nutty Prayer Man garbage...Your evasions and dictionary references are quite obnoxious and nowhere is the Depository lobby ever referred to as "vestibule"...Meanwhile the real vestibule is the small enclosure over the 2nd floor lunch room entry...The place where Baker saw Oswald...

Holmes and Biffle mixed the stories of two encounters...One happening at the 2nd floor lunch room vestibule and the other at the front entrance of the Depository...Alan ignores that Holmes quoted Oswald saying he came downstairs to see what the commotion was about...Upstairs from the lobby was the 2nd floor lunch room...

There is no reason to take Alan seriously or give him equal status in discussion of the evidence...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 10:38:09 PM
Back to the first FBI interrogation report!

OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the Coca?Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca?Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building.

Two very weird omissions here...
1--------------------NADA about an encounter with a police officer
2--------------------NADA about where exactly on the first floor LHO claimed to have been

Together, Sarah Stanton and Harry Holmes EXPLAIN these omissions...
1+2-------------------LHO told Captain Fritz he bought a coke in the second floor lunchroom BEFORE the shooting, came downstairs, was on the first floor at the time of the shooting and had an encounter with a policeman at or near the front entrance VERY SHORTLY after it. This caused panic! The investigators didn't know what to do with the policeman encounter because they knew it gave the Commie suspect his alibi! So the first report had to fudge the issue?

By the time of the next report, the Commie suspect was dead and a solution of sorts had been found: Let's put the encounter in the second floor lunchroom!


Alan is flat-out lying again...Oswald never told Fritz that he had an encounter at or near the front entrance...Alan is just flat-out lying about that...What Oswald told Fritz is: "2nd floor lunch room when officer came in"...

Alan contemptuously ignores that Truly's wife said Truly mentioned the 2nd floor lunch room encounter on friday night...

The first floor lunch room is the Domino Room...If Oswald ate lunch there and did witness Jarman and Norman then when did Sarah Stanton talk to Oswald?

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 23, 2018, 10:40:03 PM

He says while ignoring the finer, truer context and resorting to intelligence-insulting shouts...
You're done Alan...You're in contempt of the fact no one ever referenced the front lobby as "vestibule" except Kamp because he was trying to distort the testimony and bend it to fit his nutty Prayer Man garbage...Your evasions and dictionary references are quite obnoxious and nowhere is the Depository lobby ever referred to as "vestibule"...Meanwhile the real vestibule is the small enclosure over the 2nd floor lunch room entry...The place where Baker saw Oswald...

Holmes and Biffle mixed the stories of two encounters...One happening at the 2nd floor lunch room vestibule and the other at the front entrance of the Depository...Alan ignores that Holmes quoted Oswald saying he came downstairs to see what the commotion was about...Upstairs from the lobby was the 2nd floor lunch room...

There is no reason to take Alan seriously or give him equal status in discussion of the evidence...

Vestibule = front lobby or foyer of a building. Holmes even describes the double doors!

Brian's lack of basic research skills means he has to resort in desperation to putting a wig-in-a-professional-situation on his PrayerPerson candidate's head AND inventing a second Oswald in the building :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 23, 2018, 10:43:49 PM
The first floor lunch room is the Domino Room...If Oswald ate lunch there and did witness Jarman and Norman then when did Sarah Stanton talk to Oswald?

1. Visit to the second floor lunchroom for coke (seen there by Carolyn Arnold, Sarah Stanton)
2. Down to domino room (sees Jarman & Norman)
3. Encounter with police officer at front of building

Thanks again for your material help in firming up these facts, Brian, you're a star!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 11:08:01 PM
1. Visit to the second floor lunchroom for coke (seen there by Carolyn Arnold, Sarah Stanton)
2. Down to domino room (sees Jarman & Norman)
3. Encounter with police officer at front of building

Thanks again for your material help in firming up these facts, Brian, you're a star!  Thumb1:


Now it is always possible that Stanton saw Oswald around 12:15 before his trip down to the Domino Room but it is equally possible Oswald was doing his usual and screwing up interviewers with misinformation...I seriously believe Oswald might have seen Norman and Jarman going up the west elevator and simply realized they came in through the back entrance and used that to claim he was in the Domino Room...If you look at the Fritz notes the Domino Room attendance is switched and Oswald changes it to after the 2nd floor lunch room encounter...

There's serious credibility to this because all the rest of the witnessings where people actually saw him place Oswald in or near to the 2nd floor lunch room the whole time...Something the police reports would definitely not admit...

If Oswald is in the lunch room the whole time then Stanton sees him at 12:20...Oswald sees Norman and Jarman going up the west elevator at 12:22...Jeraldean Reid leaves the lunch room via the vestibule hallway and misses Oswald who is out on the landing...Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald at 12:24...Baker & Truly run in to him at 12:31:15...

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 23, 2018, 11:31:37 PM
In another AlanFord Edsel Effort, he has produced a post indicating a quote of something I supposedly said. I challenge him to produce a provable quote of me posting and/or making said statement.

As is a common practice, although I try very hard to discuss evidence, the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayermanTheory promoters have to resort to false claims, insults, and character assassination. Where is the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory reliable provable positive evidence?


I asked that you quote exactly where and when people called witnesses liars, you completely ignored my request.
Have you not noticed any insults coming from Brian? Perhaps you could find someone to review each page of this thread for you and count them because you are evidently incabable of seeing them.

Speaking for myself, someone like Brian calling me a troll is meaningless drivel, it's akin to someone calling me rascist because I dare to speak out about issues of color.
That reminds me, earlier in the thread Brian compared a researcher on another forum to "Rube Goldberg" and I responded by saying he needed a forum with no rules not knowing that this is actually a well known artist, damn philistines.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 23, 2018, 11:34:33 PM

Now it is always possible that Stanton saw Oswald around 12:15 before his trip down to the Domino Room but it is equally possible Oswald was doing his usual and screwing up interviewers with misinformation...I seriously believe Oswald might have seen Norman and Jarman going up the west elevator and simply realized they came in through the back entrance and used that to claim he was in the Domino Room...If you look at the Fritz notes the Domino Room attendance is switched and Oswald changes it to after the 2nd floor lunch room encounter...

There's serious credibility to this because all the rest of the witnessings where people actually saw him place Oswald in or near to the 2nd floor lunch room the whole time...Something the police reports would definitely not admit...

If Oswald is in the lunch room the whole time then Stanton sees him at 12:20...Oswald sees Norman and Jarman going up the west elevator at 12:22...Jeraldean Reid leaves the lunch room via the vestibule hallway and misses Oswald who is out on the landing...Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald at 12:24...Baker & Truly run in to him at 12:31:15...

 

The problem with this is that it has LHO lying for no discernible reason just so you can protect the story your heart is sold on telling.
LHO seeing Norman & Jarman going up in the elevator would NOT allow him to deduce that they came in the rear entrance to the building.
Bottom line: the first interrogation report states that LHO placed himself on the first floor when the President passed the building.
-----------Was LHO lying? WHY would he do so, if he was up in the second floor, harming nobody?
-----------Is the report lying? WHY would it do so?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 23, 2018, 11:41:39 PM
The problem with this is that it has LHO lying for no discernible reason just so you can protect the story your heart is sold on telling.
LHO seeing Norman & Jarman going up in the elevator would NOT allow him to deduce that they came in the rear entrance to the building.
Bottom line: the first interrogation report states that LHO placed himself on the first floor when the President passed the building.
-----------Was LHO lying? WHY would he do so, if he was up in the second floor, harming nobody?
-----------Is the report lying? WHY would it do so?


Read Oswald's stories to the FBI when in jail in New Orleans if you doubt Oswald's offering flagrant misinformation in interviews...

"2nd floor Coke when officer came in"...leaves a timing problem for the rest...

Oswald had a chance to blurt out that he was on the front steps to the press...Why didn't he Alan?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 23, 2018, 11:47:22 PM
Alan, that Darnell footage you used actually is stabilized(made probably painstakingly by hand rather than with a program), it's the source that's creates the unfixable problems, something with the original transfer to video technique involved I think.
I noticed similar things in a couple Gerda Dunkel's amazing gifs where only low quality footage was available to him. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 24, 2018, 12:18:29 AM
https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2 (https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2)

Part2 of the CSPAN/SFM Frazier/Mack interview where he reveals for the first time seeing LHO leaving the TSBD to perhaps grab a sandwich, another mini bombshell is where he he now believes the shots came above him(and no longer to the west of him), also and I think it's in Part1, he said he heard motorcycle backfire from the lead motorcycles, seconds before the limo came into full view and that they seemed to be doing it deliberately... fwiw.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 24, 2018, 12:43:55 AM
If anyone's interested and hasn't done so already I recommend you take a gander at Stancack's webpage, it's outstanding work IMO and aside from Duncan's first post we don't have anything like it here and he's improving it as he goes, the best case for PM/W being on the step rather than the landing. The latest overlays are very good.
https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ (https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/)

I may have mentioned before how the stance of his PM may look awkward but that could be due to the real person seeing two woman run up to the steps and he/she was just in the process of giving them a little more room.
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 24, 2018, 05:20:05 AM
Bart Kamp Wrote:

Quote
At 05:20 Doyle says: "Sarah worked on the second floor and the way she would go outside would be via the lunch room where the soda machine was."

This is completely wrong, take a good look at the 2nd floor floor plans. The only other exit in that lunch room is next to the coke machine and that led to a a conference room and its door was usually locked.



Kamp shows he is clueless to what is being said...What I was trying to say is the soda machine in the lunch room was nearby to where Sarah saw Oswald by the stairs...This is what Kamp and ROKC do...They find a quote they can use to misconstrue what is being said in order to dodge answering what was really said. Alan does the same thing...

This is dog doo research discussion Kamp is committing here...By creating this fake strawman dialogue along with the accompanying scoffing and disdain Kamp bypasses the necessary intelligent discussion that would otherwise occur...That discussion would point-out that the reason Sarah Stanton saw Oswald by the 2nd floor lunch room is because, like Jeraldean Reid, Stanton went to eat before going out front to watch the motorcade...Instead of discussing this intelligent detective-like thinking we have clumsy Bart making some kind of bizarre point about Sarah not exiting by the actual soda machine itself...I don't know what point Kamp is addressing but it is certainly not any point I made...Mrs Reid said there were other ladies eating lunch before going out...Stanton might have been one of them...   

Kamp, like usual, is simply making an unintelligent point that fails to pick-up on the fact Oswald had to be by the stairs because that is where Stanton said he was...Those stairs were either the front or back and if Stanton saw Oswald alone then it was more likely the back steps wasn't it Mr Kamp? Kamp exits his post feeling he has scored big points but fails to realize he only looks foolish and has shown the readers that the main points have flown right over his head and not only did he fail to detect them but failed to answer them as well...

 

Quote
A little further on as messaged by Jim on behalf of Doyle it says

 At 5:42 of the interview, Rosa, Sarah's daughter in law, reverts to her pure memory and mentions Sarah saying to Oswald "Are you going UP to lunch?

This is either a blatant attempt on misleading the evidence or Doyle's hearing needs a serious checkup.

She says "out to lunch"


I went back and listened several times...I really can't tell...But let's give Bart this point and say Rosa said "out"...While seizing on this one point Kamp fails to answer the second part of the argument...Let's say Sarah asked Oswald "Are you going out to lunch?"...Kamp still needs to explain Oswald's reply where he responded "No, I'm going back in my room"...Oswald is still on the 2nd floor landing and is still in front of the lunch room...Carolyn Arnold still sees Oswald in the lunch room and Wanda still remembers Sarah saying she saw Oswald in a "break room"...Even if Sarah said "out" instead of "up" Kamp still hasn't explained why we shouldn't be correctly interpreting Oswald's response as his intending to go back in the 2nd floor lunch room where he was seen? After all, Oswald's saying he intended to go back in to his room is definitely not Oswald showing intention to be Prayer Man on the front steps...Kamp avoids this because he knows it works against him...



Quote
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I already made it clear that I am not going to play along with this infantile delusional BS with regards the Stanton photo. My position on this is very clear.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Kamp is bluffing here...Here Kamp is waving his hand as the great research authority who can flagrantly dodge evidence at his own will and word...The mighty OZ has spoken! All you are seeing here people is a pathetic charlatan who has been caught dishonestly omitting evidence and is not going to post evidence that refutes him...Because there is no credible moderation on this subject Kamp is being allowed to duck a juxtaposition of Sarah's chubby forearm in the family photo with his blow-up of Prayer Man's forearm...Very simply Kamp refuses to post this because he knows it shows a forensic match and he is not going to post anything that proves our evidence and refutes his...Yes Mr Kamp...Your position is very clear...You are an obvious fraud and blowhard who lacks a sense of embarrassment when out-argued and disproven...Thank you...You are on a fast track for a moderator position! 



Quote
His Calvery story is equally worthless and I will get deep enough about this very soon..


 He says as he flagrantly dodges in public evidence that was more than clearly spelled-out that he couldn't honestly directly answer...Again, there's a lack of credible moderation involved here where people are supposed to be kept honest for purposes of site quality...

Calvery is where Graves & Larsen put her, as well as her son, and is correctly described by Frazier in his 2013 interview...Kamp is refusing to answer this because he knows there's nothing he can refute...The location of Calvery calibrates Frazier's looking at Sarah and any look at Couch/Darnell shows Frazier looking directly at Prayer Man when he described looking at Sarah...



Quote
Again Frazier overheard her while being at the bottom of the steps, just before he went in, you see that happening in Darnell?


I have already shown that Frazier was not at the bottom step when Calvery got there..He didn't have time to either go down or get back up between Wiegman and Darnell...These are reality-based clever forensic observations...Kamp ignores them and returns with his misinterpretation of what Frazier said in order not to have to answer the correct evidence...

I have already explained that Frazier mis-spoke when he said he went down to the step...If you listen to his interview his next words were about Calvery going down the sidewalk to where Kennedy was shot...Frazier simply had the word "down" in his mind and mis-spoke when he was describing moving up on the landing...Please watch the Frazier interview video and you will see this...What Frazier meant to say is he went forward on the landing and stood on the landing edge at the first step down...This is proven by the fact that when he describes hearing Calvery he describes turning immediately to Sarah to absorb what Calvery had said...He doesn't describe going back up to the landing to confront Sarah nor does the Darnell film show him doing so...It is a pure representation of Kamp and the Prayer Man side that Kamp seizes on an easily-explained verbal stumble in order to ignore the correct evidence...The answer is "No, you don't see that happening because of what I have just explained - but you do see everything else I explained about Frazier looking at Prayer Man exactly when he described looking at Sarah that Kamp avoids"...

There's nothing more pitiful than a fool with no research skill lecturing down to you in contempt while shooting his own foot off with scoffing authority...



Quote
Molina was in the lobby when she spoke with him. You see that happening in Darnell while Molina is still standing next to Frazier.


Non-sequitur...Has nothing to do with Calvery and her run as described by Frazier and seen in the Couch/Darnell films...Kamp is a liar...He knows as well as I do that Frazier previously described Calvery shouting in a low voice that the president had been shot on the way to the steps at the Garrison Trial...This is a good example of Kamp's use of dishonest strawmen to avoid the real evidence he is aware of... 

Quote
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The whole interview is a shambles and we are lucky that the soda/coke statement has significant value, other than that Doyle is leading these two like there is no tomorrow. A comparison with the Roy Lewis interview by Larry Rivera is easily made.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



I have already explained that the interview was preceded by 2 weeks of private messages where Wanda had already told me the things I am being accused of leading her with...This is typical of Kamp's style where he formulates a trash-talk like dismissal in order to avoid the real evidence he is ignoring...How did I lead them to confirm the 5 foot 5 height that matches Prayer Man's height (that Kamp fails to mention)? How did I lead Wanda to say Davidson looks like a woman? How did I lead Wanda to say Prayer Man was larger than all the other people on the steps and therefore had to be her grand mother? How did I lead her to look at the images and conclude Prayer Man was Sarah?



Quote
When it comes to this "thing", Doyle is a Fetzerian entity and most sane people see the insanity in his writings.If Doyle wants to be taken seriously he ought not to "borrow" other peoples' hard work and be better prepared with knowing the details before commencing with calling people and leading them into saying multiple things.

And that's all I have to say about all this, Doyle did us a massive favour in the end.



Actually Fetzer was the guy who was trying to place Oswald on the front steps via blurry photography and was going against all the evidence to do so...It is quite rich irony and an example of Kamp's cross-eyed, backwards sensibility that he accuses me of being the Fetzer in this situation...

Again, it is a slander to say I borrowed others' work...Nor could Kamp show where I did that...I simply saw a publicly-posted name and followed-through...Kamp is just trying to make me look bad because he knows he can't honestly deal with or answer the correct evidence I uncovered that works against his bogus Prayer Man theory...

Smart people will realize Kamp knows Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton as much as I do...He's simply a fool with no sense of self-destruction or embarrassment...These people should not be let into the main research world like they have been...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 24, 2018, 12:07:10 PM

Read Oswald's stories to the FBI when in jail in New Orleans if you doubt Oswald's offering flagrant misinformation in interviews...

"2nd floor Coke when officer came in"...leaves a timing problem for the rest...

Oswald had a chance to blurt out that he was on the front steps to the press...Why didn't he Alan?

Brian, you're still not dealing with the fact that the first interrogation report states that LHO claimed to have been on the FIRST floor when the President passed the building! Why would LHO claim such a thing, knowing that a police officer and Mr Truly saw him just after that up in the second floor lunchroom? And how exactly would he have seen Jarman and Norman coming up in the WEST elevator?

An alternative reading of 'Fritz's notes', which Fritz actually cribbed from the FBI agent who co-wrote that first interrogation report:

Claims (he went to the) 2nd Floor (for a) coke. When (the) off(icer) came (running) in to (the) first fl.(oor) (he) had (was having) lunch out front with Bill Shelley.

The dialogue might have gone something like this:

FRITZ: Where did you go after you broke for lunch?
LHO: Well, I bought a coke in the lunch room on the second floor and then went down to the lunch room on the first floor.
FRITZ: Where were you when the President was assassinated?
LHO: I was down at the front entrance. A police officer came running in and asked me where the stairs were but my boss stepped up and brought him into the building. I was just having my lunch out with Bill Shelley and a few others in front there.


This would explain why the investigators took the Altgens photo, which appeared to show LHO in the doorway, so seriously. Did the Commie suspect have an ALIBI? Panic!

LHO confirmed to the pressman that he was "in the building at the time". If he'd gone down the steps and out onto the street he would have given a different answer!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 24, 2018, 12:11:22 PM
Alan, that Darnell footage you used actually is stabilized(made probably painstakingly by hand rather than with a program), it's the source that's creates the unfixable problems, something with the original transfer to video technique involved I think.
I noticed similar things in a couple Gerda Dunkel's amazing gifs where only low quality footage was available to him.

Fair enough, Barry, though in a stabilized version I would expect at least one point in the image (e.g. the white pillar) to be fixed? Either way, any movement in PrayerPerson's body seems to correspond to movement of fixed structures like the wall. Darnell's camera moves, changing the angle slightly.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 24, 2018, 12:15:43 PM
If anyone's interested and hasn't done so already I recommend you take a gander at Stancack's webpage, it's outstanding work IMO and aside from Duncan's first post we don't have anything like it here and he's improving it as he goes, the best case for PM/W being on the step rather than the landing. The latest overlays are very good.
https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ (https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/)

I may have mentioned before how the stance of his PM may look awkward but that could be due to the real person seeing two woman run up to the steps and he/she was just in the process of giving them a little more room.


According to Stancak's model, if PrayerPerson is on the landing s/he is 5'2, if one step down 5'9.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Frederick Clements on June 24, 2018, 03:13:31 PM
Some of Brian's favorite words as seen in this thread.

Charlatanism

Uncredible

Very devious and uncredible persons

Stancak cheated and fudged

You have no skill or more likely you have cognitive dissonance

Sheer incompetence

Having dirty moderators in your corner

Gordon-led idiots on the Education Forum

Ducking and running to the protection of his dirty moderators

Who, on the Education Forum, is going to have the nerve to tell King Gordon he is naked as a jay bird

Doesn't aspire to the true evidence like its power-abusing moderators claim

It is criminal for Mr Knight to impose himself in an intimidating way

Again, your ignorance is once again trumpeted by yourself

Administrator Magda Hassan turned the board over to a primitive named Lauren Johnson

Dirty Jim D is very happy with this and congratulates the moderators for their dirty lynching

These are rogue scientific violations that go unnoticed by moderators who falsely accuse me



With statements like these is it any wonder that Brian has been on almost every forum?

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 24, 2018, 03:22:47 PM
Some of Brian's favorite words as seen in this thread.

Charlatanism

Uncredible

Very devious and uncredible persons

Stancak cheated and fudged

You have no skill or more likely you have cognitive dissonance

Sheer incompetence

Having dirty moderators in your corner

Gordon-led idiots on the Education Forum

Ducking and running to the protection of his dirty moderators

Who, on the Education Forum, is going to have the nerve to tell King Gordon he is naked as a jay bird

Doesn't aspire to the true evidence like its power-abusing moderators claim

It is criminal for Mr Knight to impose himself in an intimidating way

Again, your ignorance is once again trumpeted by yourself

Administrator Magda Hassan turned the board over to a primitive named Lauren Johnson

Dirty Jim D is very happy with this and congratulates the moderators for their dirty lynching

These are rogue scientific violations that go unnoticed by moderators who falsely accuse me



With statements like these is it any wonder that Brian has been banned on almost every forum?

Fixed to for you Frederick.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Frederick Clements on June 24, 2018, 03:29:22 PM
Thanks Ray.I did not even notice that I had left out the word banned in my post. Thanks for pointing it out.

Fred
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 24, 2018, 03:30:06 PM
If anyone's interested and hasn't done so already I recommend you take a gander at Stancack's webpage, it's outstanding work IMO and aside from Duncan's first post we don't have anything like it here and he's improving it as he goes, the best case for PM/W being on the step rather than the landing. The latest overlays are very good.
https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ (https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/)

I may have mentioned before how the stance of his PM may look awkward but that could be due to the real person seeing two woman run up to the steps and he/she was just in the process of giving them a little more room.

Barry, I agree that Stancak has done some terrific work on this but I think Brian is right (it happens now and then!) about the left leg's blocking the radiator in his suggested model of Prayer Man's posture in Darnell. This is a real problem as Darnell shows an unblocked radiator.

(https://scontent.fman2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29542099_1776960705945465_7414801388411429917_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=8a98074c0be6b27af376b71277ff70c1&oe=5B3030C4)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 24, 2018, 03:35:11 PM
Thanks Ray.I did not even notice that I had left out the word banned in my post. Thanks for pointing it out.

Fred

I'd hate to see Brian banned from this Forum. His paranoia and martyr complex are as extreme as Ralph Cinque's, but unlike Cinque he actually does make occasional contributions to the debate that are substantial, new and worthwhile.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 24, 2018, 03:51:58 PM
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

At first glance it looks like PrayerPerson hasn't changed posture or position between Wiegman and Darnell. But look closer! The left arm in Wiegman is appreciably lower than the 'left arm' in Darnell!

My take:
----------------Prayer Man in Wiegman
has become
----------------Crisscross Man in Darnell!
Title: Prayer Woman
Post by: Brian Doyle on June 24, 2018, 05:16:56 PM
Brian, you're still not dealing with the fact that the first interrogation report states that LHO claimed to have been on the FIRST floor when the President passed the building! Why would LHO claim such a thing, knowing that a police officer and Mr Truly saw him just after that up in the second floor lunchroom? And how exactly would he have seen Jarman and Norman coming up in the WEST elevator?

An alternative reading of 'Fritz's notes', which Fritz actually cribbed from the FBI agent who co-wrote that first interrogation report:

Claims (he went to the) 2nd Floor (for a) coke. When (the) off(icer) came (running) in to (the) first fl.(oor) (he) had (was having) lunch out front with Bill Shelley.

The dialogue might have gone something like this:

FRITZ: Where did you go after you broke for lunch?
LHO: Well, I bought a coke in the lunch room on the second floor and then went down to the lunch room on the first floor.
FRITZ: Where were you when the President was assassinated?
LHO: I was down at the front entrance. A police officer came running in and asked me where the stairs were but my boss stepped up and brought him into the building. I was just having my lunch out with Bill Shelley and a few others in front there.


This would explain why the investigators took the Altgens photo, which appeared to show LHO in the doorway, so seriously. Did the Commie suspect have an ALIBI? Panic!

LHO confirmed to the pressman that he was "in the building at the time". If he'd gone down the steps and out onto the street he would have given a different answer!


Because if you bothered to look at the reference of the New Orleans FBI interview I pointed-out you would see that Oswald played a game of never giving straight information when questioned...You are not being honest Alan...Oswald also said he was in the 2nd floor lunch room when officer came in...And why would Oswald say he ate lunch on the first floor after the lunch room encounter according to the Fritz notes?

I believe the west elevator was visible from the landing because it had an open enclosure where you could see in to the elevator from the landing...

Alan ignores that the now-confirmed Coke validates Jeraldean Reid who saw Oswald headed downstairs from the lunch room and therefore validates the context of the Fritz Notes that I have been showing for years...That they are in chronological order and spoke of Oswald being confronted by Baker in the 2nd floor lunch room and then going down to the 1st floor...After that he went "out" of the building with Bill Shelley in front...Alan - I can tell you why the long-sleeved Oswald screws up and tells the false account of himself standing with Shelley in front...It is because the captured long-sleeved Oswald went out the back door of the Depository and never saw what happened on the front steps...If you are sharp you'll notice Shelley never commented on this false account of being on the steps with him...

If you are trying to make Oswald Prayer Man Alan I have already proven Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton by all the evidence I have shown that you are ignoring...

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on June 24, 2018, 05:50:45 PM
If anyone's interested and hasn't done so already I recommend you take a gander at Stancack's webpage, it's outstanding work IMO and aside from Dunc