JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination 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,as far as I am aware, 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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, 12:49:04 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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, 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 JBK, along with TG JBC Jr and FL IBC in the limousine.

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 JBK, 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: 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: 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: 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: John Iacoletti on May 25, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
Who's "we"?
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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, 12:45:04 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 BK, posted elsewhere that MsStanton was east of center.
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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, 04:46:02 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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, 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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, 10:18:36 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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, 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: 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: 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, 10:39:47 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: 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: 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, 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: 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, 09:40:23 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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 - we're expected to believe in real life that the person up there held that awkward position from the time the two films were shot?  Possibly 30-45 seconds? I don't think so, Barry. If the person up there was genuinely interested in being there to see the president go by, why in the world would a person shorter than the other taller guy be standing down with one foot on the step? It's illogical and doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 24, 2018, 06:09:06 PM
As I was saying.

Has anyone, like Stancak or Kamp or Brian for example, who have announced that they have calculated the exact height of Prayer Person within an acceptable plus or minus tolerance level, taken the subjects Shoe/Boot Heel size into consideration when announcing these so called exact total height measurements for Prayer Person?

I would guess not.

If not, why not?........If yes, what are the speculative heel measurements?

This is a valid question that requires an answer otherwise all calculations from either side of the debate become invalid.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 24, 2018, 06:44:18 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!

"Alternative reading of Fritz's notes"? "Alternative"?

"The dialogue might have gone something like this:"? "Might have"?

"The Altgens photo, which appeared to show LHO in the doorway"? "Appeared to show LHO"?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 24, 2018, 07:43:46 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!


Now! Prayer Man's right elbow is HIGHER in Darnell than in Wiegman, yes?

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

I submit, friends, that this is because Prayer Man in Wiegman has crossed his arms by the time of Darnell!
What LOOKS like his left elbow/forearm in Darnell...
(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)

...is NOT his left elbow/forearm
-------------------it's too high to be his left elbow/forearm!
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

That's because it's
-------------------the object he is still holding in his RIGHT hand
-------------------the object he brought to his mouth in Wiegman!

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)   

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 25, 2018, 12:58:59 AM
Barry - we're expected to believe in real life that the person up there held that awkward position from the time the two films were shot?  Possibly 30-45 seconds? I don't think so, Barry. If the person up there was genuinely interested in being there to see the president go by, why in the world would a person shorter than the other taller guy be standing down with one foot on the step? It's illogical and doesn't make sense.

Michael, there is nothing in Weigman that suggests PM was facing anywhere other than directly forward, his whole body, so both feet are on the same step at that time, then two woman come racing up to the bottom of the steps and others are heading that way too, so PM perhaps turns to his left to give them more room to pass by, the best way to do that on those thin steps is by putting one foot up on the next one. That's all we're seeing IMO  if Stancak has his leg correct.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 25, 2018, 01:26:23 AM
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.

Alan, if you study the full version of the Darnell footage that that small crop most likely came from you can focus on the traffic light and sign posts on the island and see they are lined up in each frame. However, zoom in on those same items and you'll see that they are moving not much but enough, they're  "breathing", the footage goes in and out of focus all the time, everything is breathing, it's live. Now in my own limited experience with it when I tried to duplicate Gerda's techniques I found that the wall near PM was the worst thing to use as a focus point not only is it breathing, it creates duplicates of itself so you cannot tell which one is the real wall/pillar in many frames.
PM's arms or hands could be moving but yes I agree, since everything else is when it shouldn't be, I'm not 100% sure.
As to your folded arms idea in one of the better frames it looks as though he/she has the right arm away from the body I'll try and find it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 25, 2018, 01:55:56 AM
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)

Above link's not working Alan but I noticed you pointed this out earlier in a Dfilm frame as did Brian but he couldn't post an example, I see what you do in that frame but I'm just not as sure as you are it's the radiator. I see a line beside it's leg or on it, can't tell if it's significant or not, is it visable in only one frame? "ARTIFACT!", Again not sure but would love to see more.

Here's one for you my man.
You say that Lovelady is only one step lower than PM but in another gif you show him on a higher step, appearing equally as tall as PM, do you see any problem there?
BL was, by the rumours I've heard including BWF, shorter than LHO.  That 5.2' estimate from Buell to Gary has to be a mistake though surely,
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 25, 2018, 10:09:48 AM
Alan, if you study the full version of the Darnell footage that that small crop most likely came from you can focus on the traffic light and sign posts on the island and see they are lined up in each frame. However, zoom in on those same items and you'll see that they are moving not much but enough, they're  "breathing", the footage goes in and out of focus all the time, everything is breathing, it's live. Now in my own limited experience with it when I tried to duplicate Gerda's techniques I found that the wall near PM was the worst thing to use as a focus point not only is it breathing, it creates duplicates of itself so you cannot tell which one is the real wall/pillar in many frames.
PM's arms or hands could be moving but yes I agree, since everything else is when it shouldn't be, I'm not 100% sure.

Thanks for the clarification about this being a crop, Barry, makes sense.

Quote
As to your folded arms idea in one of the better frames it looks as though he/she has the right arm away from the body I'll try and find it.

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 25, 2018, 10:17:53 AM
Here's one for you my man.
You say that Lovelady is only one step lower than PM but in another gif you show him on a higher step, appearing equally as tall as PM, do you see any problem there?
BL was, by the rumours I've heard including BWF, shorter than LHO.  That 5.2' estimate from Buell to Gary has to be a mistake though surely,


I don't see any problem at all there, Barry. Lovelady was 5'8". Very pleasing to see a frame of him side by side with Prayer Man in which their heights are very close!

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 25, 2018, 10:37:50 AM
Since a reply to a post by me, I will simply state the question is not asking who was there, but it is asking for an identification of an image of someone who is there. The ScarfLadyImage does indicate some resemblance to PrayerPersonImage, and although minor, still worth investigating.

The ScarfLadyImage identity topic has been around about 18 months, as indicated in a thread/discussion on DPF that was started in January, 2017. And, to my knowledge, yet to be positively correctly identified.


No, it's been around 5 years!
She's not Prayer Man
-------------most likely she's either Vida Lee Whatley or Virginia H. Barnum  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 25, 2018, 10:51:14 AM
I recall reading somewhere about a claim from the late Jack White that Carolyn Johnston (nee Arnold) indicated that she had more to tell of her LHO 11.22.63 sighting and would do so through her lawyer after her retirement.

Theory!

Arnold saw LHO twice that day
------------FIRST in the second floor lunchroom (ca. 12.20)
------------SECOND behind the glass entrance doorway on the first floor (very shortly before the motorcade arrived).

I.e....
------------she told the FBI about both sightings but they only allowed the second one go on record
------------when Anthony Summers contacted her in 1978 she was horrified to hear that the lunchroom sighting had been suppressed by the FBI... but emphatically disowned the doorway sighting out of fear of personal and/or professional repercussions... she was now Carolyn Johnston and had built up a new professional life... understandable!

But I do hope she sees her way to going on the record again!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 12:27:28 AM
Off-topic question!

Is there consensus on what is causing the apparent shadow line down Lovelady's body?

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 26, 2018, 01:50:11 AM
Crop from Murray or Allen I forget sorry, around 1:00-1:15PM I suppose, full image somewhere halfway through this thread.
Only evidence of shadow I found is on the young man's back but even this is debateable, could be something in the background nearer the door, he's a short arm's length from the rail IMO.

(https://i.imgur.com/I28agmR.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 01:55:42 AM
I was more open-minded and explored it with Brian but could find no evidence from any images taken in the next hour that showed anyone near BL's position being hit by shadow(except one I'll post it soon), if I was more familiar with those same images and where the west wall's shadow line ends I would have known it was a nobrainer from the start. I would say Andrej's shadow line is pretty close, I only doubt the hand of Darnell's PM being hit by sunlight, frankly I don't see it, Andrej does and I think that is why it is in his Darnell model.

I've not seen it explained elsewhere but it may well have been, as you can see from that last gif, the lower BL is, the more shadow he catches, this makes no sense and again no sign of shadow in later photos on anyone near this position close to the rail. Until I learn differently it's a photographic anomaly.

It's most peculiar, isn't it, Barry? What an unfortunate place for such an anomaly to present itself!

I'd be extremely interested in seeing that exception you say you came across.

Yes, I think Andrej's sunlight-on-hand assumption is more than questionable and leads him (and of course Brian) into unnecessary complication.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 01:58:59 AM
Crop from Murray or Allen I forget sorry, around 1:00-1:15PM I suppose, full image somewhere halfway through this thread.
Only evidence of shadow I found is on the young man's back but even this is debateable, could be something in the background nearer the door, he's a short arm's length from the rail IMO.

(https://i.imgur.com/I28agmR.jpg)

Thanks, Barry. The Wiegman shadow mystery remains!

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

When Lovelady's on the higher step, the 'shadow' is not cleanly vertical. He's leaning east, and the 'shadow' with him. Could he be wearing a dark, unzipped jacket over his shirt??
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 26, 2018, 02:16:13 AM

I don't see any problem at all there, Barry. Lovelady was 5'8". Very pleasing to see a frame of him side by side with Prayer Man in which their heights are very close!

If the 5.8' height is correct Alan I agree, it's not a problem, do you remember where the source of that height comes from?  I guess I should know it but I don't.

^
PS. In that image above the young man is assumed to be still on the top step where he is seen in another image with one foot up on the landing.
PPS. Yes a jacket solves it but there is no evidence in Hughes he has on anything other than his shirt, have you seen that?  I haven't for a while, BL leans out puts his hand up to shield his eyes and then steps back to the shade? Also there's the Couch and Martin film BL's to consider.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 02:24:00 AM
If the 5.8' height is correct Alan I agree, it's not a problem, do you remember where the source of that height comes from?  I guess I should know it but I don't.

It's in one of the FBI reports, Barry.

Quote
PS. In that image above the young man is assumed to be still on the top step where he is seen in another image with one foot up on the landing.
PPS. Yes a jacket solves it but there is no evidence in Hughes he has on anything other than his shirt, have you seen that?  I haven't for a while, BL leans out puts his hand up to shield his eyes and then steps back to the shade? Also there's the Couch and Martin film BL's to consider.

Well, then perhaps the man in Hughes is not Lovelady but another man wearing a reddish shirt?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 26, 2018, 03:07:28 AM
Thanks for the source Alan and... after seeing a nice zoomed in and "stabilized" crop of the Hughes doorway I found it hard to see anyone other than the Lovelady after a minute, it's rather good from so far away, wasn't looking for a jacket at that time though.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 03:34:50 AM
Thanks for the source Alan and... after seeing a nice zoomed in and "stabilized" crop of the Hughes doorway I found it hard to see anyone other than the Lovelady after a minute, it's rather good from so far away, wasn't looking for a jacket at that time though.

You wouldn't have found one, Barry, and that's my point! IF the solution to the 'shadow' on Lovelady in Wiegman is that he was wearing a dark unzipped jacket over his shirt, then the identification as Lovelady of the man on the steps in Hughes just behind Carl Edward Jones as JFK is coming onto Elm Street is thrown completely into question.
What if Lovelady never WAS over by the west wall of the entrance?
The thought then occurs...
---------LHO told Captain Fritz he wore a "reddish" shirt to work that day
---------it has been identified as CE151
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 26, 2018, 03:54:45 AM
Barry - we're expected to believe in real life that the person up there held that awkward position from the time the two films were shot?  Possibly 30-45 seconds? I don't think so, Barry. If the person up there was genuinely interested in being there to see the president go by, why in the world would a person shorter than the other taller guy be standing down with one foot on the step? It's illogical and doesn't make sense.

My apologies for the interruption Michael, but my long held belief is that PrayerPersonImage is standing in the corner, with the right shoulder next to the west wall, and the left shoulder next to the glass/north wall, west of the doorway. I have also concluded PrayerPersonImage has a slight to their right head turn toward a returning GloriaCalvery who is announcing what she just witnessed. However, I believe that PPI is in the beginning of a to the left head turn for a conversation with BuellFrazier. And, that said, there is no need for additional room for doorway entry from that position, as well there is no room to give. For clarity, of course I still conclude that PPI represents a female then employed at the TSBD Bldg.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 10:50:27 AM
You wouldn't have found one, Barry, and that's my point! IF the solution to the 'shadow' on Lovelady in Wiegman is that he was wearing a dark unzipped jacket over his shirt, then the identification as Lovelady of the man on the steps in Hughes just behind Carl Edward Jones as JFK is coming onto Elm Street is thrown completely into question.
What if Lovelady never WAS over by the west wall of the entrance?
The thought then occurs...
---------LHO told Captain Fritz he wore a "reddish" shirt to work that day
---------it has been identified as CE151

Is this really Billy Lovelady in his red shirt in the doorway in the Hughes film, as everyone thinks?

(https://i.imgur.com/4h5s3Ap.gif)

If so, then the apparent 'shadow' down the west side of Lovelady's body in Wiegman will have to be explained in some way OTHER than by a dark, unzipped jacket!

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

But what about Altgens, I hear you say as you roll your honest eyes to heaven! It shows Lovelady in his plaid shirt! No dark jacket!
No! Lovelady's 'left arm' in Altgens is actually...
----------------the raised hand of someone in the street!

(https://i.imgur.com/Wv4mMI1.jpg)

Purely to show where the hand is, here's the Altgens photo Walter Cronkite showed America on live TV the evening of the assassination:

(https://i.imgur.com/oq0P3jr.jpg)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 11:17:03 AM
The shirt LHO wore to work that day?

(https://i.imgur.com/srcdRX3.jpg)

(Credit: Pat Speer patspeer.com)

(https://i.imgur.com/4h5s3Ap.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 26, 2018, 05:09:20 PM
Another case of the stoopids from Brian! There is simply no way that 'clear shadow' originates from the edge of the west wall. It's because of this thing called an, uh, angle?

Riddle us this, Brian. How come the 'clear shadow' on Lovelady is vertical in one of these frames but slanted in the other? Did the portal you say cast the shadow tilt? Was there an earthquake?  ???

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

Alan, he doesn't realise (or won't) that the vertical shadow is caused by the left wall of the entrance, and the other by the lintel over the entrance.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 05:20:24 PM
Alan, he doesn't realise (or won't) that the vertical shadow is caused by the left wall of the entrance, and the other by the lintel over the entrance.

Mr Mitcham, poor Brian just sees what he wants to see and throws a tantrum when the facts answer back!

Re: the 'shadow' on Lovelady. Surely the sun is simply too far east for the left wall of the entrance to be casting any shadow on Lovelady? Stancak's model of the doorway would have to be catastrophically off...

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

And how would the horizontal lintel over the entrance cast a near-vertical shadow?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 26, 2018, 05:27:28 PM
Tell us oh wise one. What angle was shadow that the sun was casting on the steps at 1.30p.m. on 11.22.1963?

Bump.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 26, 2018, 05:29:52 PM
Mr Mitcham, poor Brian just sees what he wants to see and throws a tantrum when the facts answer back!

Re: the 'shadow' on Lovelady. Surely the sun is simply too far east for the left wall of the entrance to be casting any shadow on Lovelady? Stancak's model of the doorway would have to be catastrophically off...

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

And how would the horizontal lintel over the entrance cast a near-vertical shadow?

It wouldn't Alan. If Frazier was standing full on to the parade, the shadow shown on him would be horizontal. Because he is turning slightly to his right the shadow is at an angle, and is caused by the lintel of the entrance.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 26, 2018, 05:31:52 PM
Tell us, oh, wise one. What angle was shadow that the sun was casting on the steps at 1.30p.m. on 11.22.1963?

bump.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 05:37:50 PM
It wouldn't Alan. If Frazier was standing full on to the parade, the shadow shown on him would be horizontal. Because he is turning slightly to his right the shadow is at an angle, and is caused by the lintel of the entrance.

Ray, we see the lintel shadow on Frazier in Darnell. It looks nothing like the vertical or off-vertical 'shadow' down Lovelady's shirt in either of the Wiegman frames

(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg) (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 June 26, 2018, 05:42:51 PM
Ray, we see the lintel shadow on Frazier in Darnell. It looks nothing like the vertical or off-vertical 'shadow' on Lovelady in either of the Wiegman frames

(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg) (https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

Agreed, but the shadow on Frazier, I believe, is caused by the left wall of the entrance. The first photo shows a vertical shadow and the second a slightly angled shadow. The reason for the difference in  both Darnell photos is that in the second, Frazier is leaning slightly backwards, probably to see better, what was happening further down the street.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 26, 2018, 05:56:10 PM
Bump for Brian.

Just tell me, as the top mind on the subject,  :D, Brian, what angle was the sun casting on the steps at 12.30 on the day JFK was shot?

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 06:08:21 PM
Agreed, but the shadow on Frazier, I believe, is caused by the left wall of the entrance. The first photo shows a vertical shadow and the second a slightly angled shadow. The reason for the difference in  both Darnell photos is that in the second, Frazier is leaning slightly backwards, probably to see better, what was happening further down the street.

I still don't see how the 'shadow' going down Lovelady's shirt, which seems to follow the orientation of Lovelady's body uncannily, can possibly be cast by the west portal. He's not nearly far west enough

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

Here's the scene a few seconds later. No hint of a shadow cast on the woman in white below Frazier. And most if not all of Frazier's chest is catching direct sunlight

(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 26, 2018, 07:14:28 PM
the vertical shadow is caused by the left wall of the entrance.

Actually, it isn't Ray.

The vertical shadow on Lovelady is caused by the inner West side vertical support pillar.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 26, 2018, 07:19:32 PM
Actually, it isn't Ray.

The vertical shadow on Lovelady is caused by the inner West side vertical support pillar.

I disagree totally,, but nevertheless, show us your calculations or proof, Duncan.

Matters not anyway, as the shadow is still caused by the vertical edge of the doorway whether the outside or the inner vertical.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 26, 2018, 07:41:18 PM
Actually, it isn't Ray.

The vertical shadow on Lovelady is caused by the inner West side vertical support pillar.

O.K. What I thought was the end of left wall is actually a column. My bad. I was working off  a sketch, rather than a photo. but see now from the photos that it is indeed a column and not the end of the front wall. Semantics, however, as my argument still stands. Substitute column for end of left wall.

The sketch below shows the entrance I was working to and the thick black line shows the line of the shadow at 12.30.
(https://s33.postimg.cc/yzosq0ql7/TSBD_doorway.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/yzosq0ql7/)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 26, 2018, 07:49:11 PM
We explored the shadow coming from above here in the last edition of this topic and we found that if you're not on the landing and around 5.9' it will not touch you.

Also if you believe that it is real shadow on BL then keep an eye out for an image taken i the next 3hrs that shows anyone in the same position being hit by anything similar, I posted the only one I could find and I'm not even certain that the thin dark patch on the young man's back is indeed shadow. Until I see proof I'll remain doubtful for now and of course it looks like shadow but Ray has really surprised me by saying it's coming from the west wall/pillar, how does work with all the aftermath images of the thin shadow on the steps and with Andej's model and like I say no evidence there on people in later images?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 26, 2018, 08:04:49 PM
This would be the angle of the shadow line of that pillar if the "shadow" on BL is real. Just out of sight from Altgens and covering most all of the part of Loveday he couldn't see.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Altgens6_blowup.jpg)

So no offence Ray but why are you still asking Brian what he thinks of the angle when you're now ageeing with him?
It also completely contradicts the sun angle Andrej has gone with.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 26, 2018, 08:14:57 PM
I disagree totally,, but nevertheless, show us your calculations or proof, Duncan.

Matters not anyway, as the shadow is still caused by the vertical edge of the doorway whether the outside or the inner vertical.

I meant to say inner West side Pillar.

I was thinking Virtually again, silly me, so you were correct to disagree. .
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 08:21:09 PM
Barry is right!

If the dark border going down nearly half of Lovelady in Wiegman is a shadow cast by the west entrance pillar, then Stancak's calculations are not just wrong but OUTLANDISHLY wrong.

Here's Stancak's reconstruction of the entrance:

(https://i.imgur.com/Pg7Bo5L.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FdQPSKp.jpg)

Ignore the Prayer Man avatar. Shrink the Frazier avatar to 5'8" and bring him down to the top step by the center railing
-----------It's a complete non-starter that he's going to catch any shadow from the west pillar, let alone the 'shadow' we see going down Lovelady. No way. No how.


(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

So my question for those arguing for a shadow is this:
What are your grounds for disagreeing with Stancak's calculations so radically?

Have you, for instance, anything from the photo record to support your TOTAL dismissal of his reconstructed doorway? Like Barry, I have searched and can find not a single image to support even the possibility of this being a shadow on Lovelady!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 26, 2018, 09:01:35 PM
Just a word on the Hughes "Lovelady" Alan.
You need to see the cropped, zoomed in version of it. I have an idea where I saw it last.
Also since I promised you, I only have this which you probably have already seen, but I liked that's why...

Arrows aren't mine, I think it cleans up the frame a little rather than distort it but my opinion... and I'm not going to convince you with this alone but it looks to me(or did) like "his" right arm is away from the body. Frazier's arms in the same footage are clearly folded, they have that recognisable form but PM, not so much.
(https://i.imgur.com/DizPANX.jpg)

I've seen other versions of this where the person got similar results, so I'm not sure yet if it's bare arm or shirt but we can all see what the results suggest.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 26, 2018, 09:04:13 PM
Sorry for the lame Altgens crop btw, just came to hand quickest, y'all know it and where to get better.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 26, 2018, 09:21:01 PM

The sketch below shows the entrance I was working to and the thick black line shows the line of the shadow at 12.30.
(https://s33.postimg.cc/yzosq0ql7/TSBD_doorway.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/yzosq0ql7/)

Ray, do you believe Billy was as far east as he could get in Wiegman without crossing the central rail?
I do, so it's not adding up for me but I still think you and Andrej have the shadow line correct fwiw.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 09:37:32 PM
Just a word on the Hughes "Lovelady" Alan.
You need to see the cropped, zoomed in version of it. I have an idea where I saw it last.
Also since I promised you, I only have this which you probably have already seen, but I liked that's why...

Arrows aren't mine, I think it cleans up the frame a little rather than distort it but my opinion... and I'm not going to convince you with this alone but it looks to me(or did) like "his" right arm is away from the body. Frazier's arms in the same footage are clearly folded, they have that recognisable form but PM, not so much.
(https://i.imgur.com/DizPANX.jpg)

I've seen other versions of this where the person got similar results, so I'm not sure yet if it's bare arm or shirt but we can all see what the results suggest.

Ah, thanks for this, Barry! It's an ambiguous image, at least as suggestive of folded arms as of PrayerMan arms IMHO:

(https://i.imgur.com/oqjyfo8.jpg)

If folded arms, the phantom left arm I've cropped out above could even be something Roy Edward Lewis is holding as he stands behind the glass door...

(https://i.imgur.com/DU8yzWW.jpg)


If Prayer Man just kept his hands in the 'prayer' position, then how come
---------his RIGHT elbow in Wiegman is lower than in Darnell?
---------his LEFT elbow in Wiegman is a lot lower than 'it' is in Darnell?

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

The relationship between these two images suggests to me that that's not his left elbow in Darnell at all!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 09:48:18 PM
Here's Lovelady at 12.30pm:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

Here are some images from a little later in the day, when the sun has moved west, LENGTHENING the shadow cast by the west pillar. And yet, if we look at the Lovelady stand-ins...


(https://i.imgur.com/5V2UfSr.jpg)
===> NO SHADOW!

(https://i.imgur.com/jLYrLbF.jpg)
===> NO SHADOW!

 (https://i.imgur.com/GSPru87.jpg)
===> NO SHADOW!

Was the sun dancing at 12.30 that day?
  ???
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 10:11:36 PM
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

Why do we see no shadow on Lower Lovelady's face? Why does the 'shadow' move down with him a step?

Ain't no shadow, folks!  Walk:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 26, 2018, 10:13:46 PM
Nice presentation of those images Alan thanks.
Also yes I can finally see the right hand as an elbow now if I want to.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 10:14:47 PM
Nice presentation of those images Alan thanks.
Also yes I can finally see the right hand as an elbow now if I want to.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 26, 2018, 10:20:20 PM
Alan, the one with the inspector shows shadow on his right arm but I'm guessing there's someone else there causing it, I'm also guessing that's not a cropped image.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 26, 2018, 10:35:14 PM
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=8&page=2 (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=8&page=2)
Alan can you check the above link to our galleries here and look for the Hughes gif with Lovelady, it's not showing for me  but perhaps it will for you?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 10:43:46 PM
Alan, the one with the inspector shows shadow on his right arm but I'm guessing there's someone else there causing it, I'm also guessing that's not a cropped image.

Don't think so, Barry.
This one's the absolute kicker for the shadow theory:

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

------------look how far west the cop can go without catching shadow!

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 10:53:09 PM
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=8&page=2 (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=8&page=2)
Alan can you check the above link to our galleries here and look for the Hughes gif with Lovelady, it's not showing for me  but perhaps it will for you?

Doesn't seem to be there, Barry. Remember seeing it somewhere a while back!

The elimination-----------absent an evidence-based refutation from our friends-----------of the west pillar shadow means the problem looms VERY large indeed:

What is that dark border going down Lovelady's west side?

The only logical answer I can think of-----------pending Brian's no doubt impending proposal that only 0.5 x Lovelady worked at the TSBD---------is a dark unzipped/unfastened jacket or coat.

What other possibility is there?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 26, 2018, 11:23:39 PM
To those just tuning in to tonight's broadcast, let me explain what's really going on here!

A number of people are deeply worried because the dark border running down Billy Lovelady in the Wiegman film-----------

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

-----------turns out NOT to be a shadow from the west entrance pillar, as had generally been assumed.

This means an ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION for the dark border must be found.
The simplest-----------no: ONLY!----------explanation thus far put forward is that Lovelady was not just wearing his plaid shirt at 12.30pm, he was wearing a dark, unzipped/unfastened jacket over it!

If true, then the man in red seen in the Depository building entrance in the Hughes film------------

(https://i.imgur.com/4h5s3Ap.gif)

-------------cannot be Lovelady!

All of which raises the very real (and very upsetting) possibility that the Hughes film is in fact showing us-----------
PRAYER MAN IN COLOR

You heard it here first, folks  Thumb1:


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 27, 2018, 05:10:43 AM
Can this really be happening? Is it being proposed that BillyNolanLovelady is/was wearing an unzipped dark jacket as the motorcade drove past the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building? Aside from an agenda based imagination, there is nothing to support that scenario. Pure and simple, nothing. And, there is nothing provable to indicate PrayerPersonImage to be any male, which of course eliminates LeeHarveyOswald.
Talk about absolute  BS:!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Frederick Clements on June 27, 2018, 10:57:57 AM
Interesting portion of Lovelady's testimony.

Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me...
Mr. BALL - What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.
Mr. BALL - What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley.
Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton.
Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Were you there when the President's motorcade went by
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure did.


Lovelady is asked who was there on the steps with him. He mentions some names then says right behind me and gets cut off.Mr Ball does not refer to the person behind again.

The person standing to the right and behind of Lovelady was Prayer Man. It appears that just as Lovelady is about to name this person he gets cut off and diverted.As if Ball did not want this person's name to be on the record.

Quite suspicious don't you think?

Fred
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 27, 2018, 11:12:05 AM
Barry is right!

If the dark border going down nearly half of Lovelady in Wiegman is a shadow cast by the west entrance pillar, then Stancak's calculations are not just wrong but OUTLANDISHLY wrong.

Here's Stancak's reconstruction of the entrance:

(https://i.imgur.com/Pg7Bo5L.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FdQPSKp.jpg)

Ignore the Prayer Man avatar. Shrink the Frazier avatar to 5'8" and bring him down to the top step by the center railing
-----------It's a complete non-starter that he's going to catch any shadow from the west pillar, let alone the 'shadow' we see going down Lovelady. No way. No how.


(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

So my question for those arguing for a shadow is this:
What are your grounds for disagreeing with Stancak's calculations so radically?

Have you, for instance, anything from the photo record to support your TOTAL dismissal of his reconstructed doorway? Like Barry, I have searched and can find not a single image to support even the possibility of this being a shadow on Lovelady!

Stancek's calculations are not wrong. The shadow running down Lovely is not a dark jacket it is the shadow of the left column of the entrance.

Look at the two Darnell photos of Lovelady. The shadow changes angle as he moves down and to his right.
How would a jacket move that way?
In Stancek's recreation, the shadow on Frazier is the shadow of the lintel over the doorway. (See the same shadow on the doorway behind him.)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 27, 2018, 11:13:28 AM
Can this really be happening? Is it being proposed that BillyNolanLovelady is/was wearing an unzipped dark jacket as the motorcade drove past the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building? Aside from an agenda based imagination, there is nothing to support that scenario. Pure and simple, nothing. And, there is nothing provable to indicate PrayerPersonImage to be any male, which of course eliminates LeeHarveyOswald.
Talk about absolute  BS:!


How do you explain the dark border going down Lovelady's side in Wiegman?

(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 June 27, 2018, 11:16:50 AM
How do you explain the dark border going down Lovelady's side in Wiegman?

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

Alan, it the shadow of the west door column. Note how it moves when he steps to his right and down a step.
One shadow is angled because he leans back slightly.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 27, 2018, 11:23:58 AM
Stancek's calculations are not wrong. The shadow running down Lovely is not a dark jacket it is the shadow of the left column of the entrance.

Look at the two Darnell photos of Lovelady. The shadow changes angle as he moves down and to his right.
How would a jacket move that way?
In Stancek's recreation, the shadow on Frazier is the shadow of the lintel over the doorway.

Unless a jacket is very loose fitting, Ray, it will tilt with the body, especially if the body is leaning back a little. Just like we see here:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

There's simply no way this is a shadow cast by the left column, otherwise this photo taken a little later, with the sun a little further west, would be impossible in the way it shows the motorcycle officer in direct sunlight:

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


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 27, 2018, 11:35:23 AM
Unless a jacket is very loose fitting, Ray, it will tilt with the body, especially if the body is leaning back a little. Just like we see here:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

There's simply no way this is a shadow cast by the left column, otherwise this photo taken a little later, with the sun a little further west, would be impossible in the way it shows the motorcycle officer in direct sunlight:

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

The cop in the motorcycle helmet is standing further forward on a lower step than the others. You can see the shadow of the left column, to the right of his right leg. You can also see the shadow cast by the lintel to the lower left of the cop on the right.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 27, 2018, 11:43:52 AM
If there is any member of the forum, able to get to the TSBD in the next few days, it would be easy to prove that Stancek is quite correct. Assuming the weather is sunny and it should be this time of the year, I will tell him or her what time to stand on the steps to simulate Frazier's position. The sun's shadow will be the same plane, at 12.32 today, as it was at 12.30 on 11.22.63.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 27, 2018, 11:50:50 AM
The cop in the motorcycle helmet is standing further forward on a lower step than the others. You can see the shadow of the left column, to the right of his right leg.

No, they're both one step down. The motorcycle cop's hand is on the top of the railing.

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

Here's the scene ca. 12:50pm:

(https://i.imgur.com/omP9SVo.gif)

Look at the man in green entering the building, and the cop in charge who casts a shadow on his back. No way can we get from a west pillar shadow down Lovelady's side in Wiegman at 12.30pm to this.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 27, 2018, 11:56:40 AM
No, they're both one step down. The motorcycle cop's hand is on the top of the railing.

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

No the motorcycle cop is much shorter than the cop on the right who is standing on the top of the steps. The cop in the middle also looks as thought he is standing on the same step as the motorcycle co, otherwise he would have the same shadow on him, as the cop on the right.
Quote
Here's the scene at 12:50pm:

(https://i.imgur.com/omP9SVo.gif)

Look at the man in green entering the building, and the cop in charge who casts a shadow on his back.

No, it isn't the cop's shadow. It is the shadow of the lintel on the green man as he enters. Note how the shadow moves down the man's back in a straight line. This wouldn't have happened, if it was the cops' shadow to his left.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 27, 2018, 12:00:08 PM
No the motorcycle cop is much shorter than the cop on the right who is standing on the top of the steps.
No, it isn't the cop's shadow. It is the shadow of the lintel on the green man as he enters.

I'm not talking about the horizontal lintel shadow (which is obviously there) but the fact that no vertical shadow from the west pillar is appearing on green shirt man's back. As Hughes shows, even the presiding cop is in direct sunlight!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 27, 2018, 12:02:40 PM
I'm not talking about the horizontal lintel shadow (which is obviously there) but the fact that no vertical shadow from the west pillar is appearing on green shirt man's back. As Hughes shows, even the presiding cop is in direct sunlight!

If the "presiding cop" has no shadow on him, he is obviously not in the shadow of the left column. so the man to his left would hardly have a shadow would he?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 27, 2018, 12:04:27 PM
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Sarah1.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 27, 2018, 12:06:40 PM
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Sarah1.gif)

Babushka Lady?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 27, 2018, 12:13:42 PM
If the "presiding cop" has no shadow on him, he is obviously not in the shadow of the left column. so the man to his left would hardly have a shadow would he?

The Hughes shows just how far west you had to go in that entrance to catch shadow from the west pillar!

For the shadow-on-Lovelady theory to be correct, we would have to be seeing a clear vertical shadow appearing on the back of green shirt man at some point as he goes up the steps and onto the landing. But there's not a hint of one.

(https://i.imgur.com/omP9SVo.gif)

This completely rules out a shadow from the west pillar as the cause of the dark border on Lovelady in Wiegman.

Remember, Ray--------the dark border doesn't just show on Higher Lovelady. It's there on him when he steps down too!

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 27, 2018, 12:14:59 PM
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Sarah1.gif)

Virginia H. Barnum or Vida Lee Whatley!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 27, 2018, 12:23:28 PM
The Hughes shows just how far west you had to go in that entrance to catch shadow from the west pillar!

For the shadow-on-Lovelady theory to be correct, we would have to be seeing a clear vertical shadow appearing on the back of green shirt man at some point as he goes up the steps and onto the landing. But there's not a hint of one.

(https://i.imgur.com/omP9SVo.gif)

This completely rules out a shadow from the west pillar as the cause of the dark border on Lovelady in Wiegman.

Remember, Ray--------the dark border doesn't just show on Higher Lovelady. It's there on him when he steps down too!

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

We'll just have beg to differ, until we get a volunteer to stand on the top of the steps at the correct time.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 27, 2018, 01:22:34 PM
We'll just have beg to differ, until we get a volunteer to stand on the top of the steps at the correct time.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on June 27, 2018, 04:45:30 PM
Shadows in action:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tOaCp331tHfElzjdPQH_JWCAcOameGem/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tOaCp331tHfElzjdPQH_JWCAcOameGem/view?usp=sharing)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 27, 2018, 05:12:04 PM
Shadows in action:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tOaCp331tHfElzjdPQH_JWCAcOameGem/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tOaCp331tHfElzjdPQH_JWCAcOameGem/view?usp=sharing)

Thanks, Chris.

Still inexplicable how a vertical shadow cast by the west wall could be showing up on Lovelady in EITHER frame:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 27, 2018, 10:08:29 PM
Friends, let's go back to first principles on this Wiegman shadow thing, because we seem to be talking about two different Depository entrances!

Here's an overhead from Stancak's reconstruction. (Obviously it's showing the Darnell scene, but that's not important here.)

(https://i.imgur.com/niMSwY3.jpg)

I've marked in green the edge of the shadow cast by the west pillar:

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

Simple question!

How in God's name do we get from the above play of light and shade to this 'shadow' on Lovelady?:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

SOMEONE SHOW ME! Draw an X on the spot in Stancak's entrance where you think Lovelady is in either of these Wiegman frames. That way, I can finally understand how the shadow will run down his right side!

OR! If the answer is------------Stancak's placed the edge of the shadow in the wrong place!  >:( -------------then show us where you think it SHOULD go!

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 27, 2018, 10:19:01 PM
Thanks, Chris.

Still inexplicable how a vertical shadow cast by the west wall could be showing up on Lovelady in EITHER frame:


Alan/Chris I can see the first frame, it's like the Cook/Cooper film but it's not playing for me, I've seen it  on Youtube though, that's the same film where we see firemen or men with ladders run up through Lovelady's position. So what are you seeing? Shadow on the cop but nothing on the guy in white who is stood nearer the railing in Lovelady's pos'?
The guy in white should be the one half in shadow if it matches Weigman, correct or no?

PS, since I just read it again, the Lintle's shadow only hits people when they step up to the landing, prove me wrong.

*Spellcheck.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 27, 2018, 10:22:34 PM
Alan/Chris I can see the first frame, it's like the Cook/Cooper film but it's not playing for me, I've seen it  on Youtube though, that's the same film were we see firemen or men with ladders run up through Lovelady's position. So what are you seeing? Shadow on the cop but nothing on the guy in white who is stood nearer the railing in Lovelady's pos'?
The guy in white should be the one half in shadow if it matches Weigman, correct or no?



Right you are, Barry. I think those defending the shadow explanation have forgotten that Upper Lovelady shows in Altgens. This rather limits one's ability to nudge him west into the shadow area!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 27, 2018, 10:36:42 PM
Reading along on this thread, I find it amazing, but troubling as well, that so much effort is being made to promote the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory. And, being promoted time and again with assertions beyond fact, as if playing a video game without considering the ramifications, but not caring as well.

It is bad enough to make such assertions, unprovable, but then challenge someone to prove the said assertions wrong, knowing any presented evidence in opposition will be denied and disputed with additional false claims? And, assertions are made utilizing an animated image of the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building entrance portal, with mannequins inserted for portal occupants. Mannequins inserted? Positions based on what? A film still from a hand-held camera from a moving motorcade vehicle some distance away?

I, among many others, conclude that the PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TSBD Bldg, and at the time of filming the entrance portal, LHO was on the 2nd floor at or near the lunchroom, and was encountered there about 75 seconds later. And, I among others, conclude that the timing of the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter eliminates LHO as PM, and said encounter is not a hoax.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 27, 2018, 10:47:23 PM
Reading along on this thread, I find it amazing, but troubling as well, that so much effort is being made to promote the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory. And, being promoted time and again with assertions beyond fact, as if playing a video game without considering the ramifications, but not caring as well.

It is bad enough to make such assertions, unprovable, but then challenge someone to prove the said assertions wrong, knowing any presented evidence in opposition will be denied and disputed with additional false claims. And, assertions are made utilizing an animated image of the TexasSchoolBookDepositoey Building entrance portal, with mannequins inserted for portal occupants. Mannequins inserted? Positions based on what? A film still from a hand-held camera from a moving motorcade vehicle some distance away?

I, among many others, conclude that the PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TSBD Bldg, and at the time of filming the entrance portal, LHO was on the 2nd floor at or near the lunchroom, and was encountered there about 75 seconds later. And, I among others, conclude that the timing of the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter eliminates LHO as PM, and said encounter is not a hoax.


Mr.ItalicsTrotter's sum contribution to the current discussion is a rather fetching font color sequence. Perhaps, Italics, you might switch to orange and remind us what date & time the mortal wounding of JohnFitzgeraldKennedy, USP, and the critical wounding of JohnConnally, Governor, took place? It's critical information, and we need an authoritative statement on it. Thank you, sir.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 28, 2018, 12:38:35 AM
Mr.ItalicsTrotter's sum contribution to the current discussion is a rather fetching font color sequence. Perhaps, Italics, you might switch to orange and remind us what date & time the mortal wounding of JohnFitzgeraldKennedy, USP, and the critical wounding of JohnConnally, Governor, took place? It's critical information, and we need an authoritative statement on it. Thank you, sir.

I just wish he'd give us his opinion, just one time. Is that too much to ask?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 28, 2018, 12:58:40 AM
...

SOMEONE SHOW ME! Draw an X on the spot in Stancak's entrance where you think Lovelady is in either of these Wiegman frames. That way, I can finally understand how the shadow will run down his right side!

OR! If the answer is------------Stancak's placed the edge of the shadow in the wrong place!  >:( -------------then show us where you think it SHOULD go!

 Thumb1:

Seconded and nicely put, Andrej, Chris,  please help us out and if of you can pin down Lovelady's leaning position on the step from the images.
Does Reese move directly up into BL's position in Darnell? I think she does more or less.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 28, 2018, 01:51:29 AM
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes...

(https://i.imgur.com/4CnZDfx.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 28, 2018, 02:33:15 AM
In Altgens 6 we see Lovelady...

(https://i.imgur.com/SV9ekeH.jpg)

? and behind him the vertical strip from the door

(https://i.imgur.com/s4tFMGE.jpg)

Let's apply this to Stancak's overhead model to get a sense of Altgens's line of sight into the entrance area:

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

Thus, if Altgens had taken his photo at the time of the Darnell frame Stancak is working from, he would only have captured Frazier from the left shoulder down.

Now! Altgens 6 corresponds with elevated Lovelady in Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/Unm9t3z.jpg)

So-----------------how exactly do people arguing for a shadow from the west pillar on Lovelady propose to place him within the west pillar's shadow? Where in the picture below would you put him?

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

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 28, 2018, 06:36:01 PM
I agree that the azimuth calculations are trivial, but there is a lot of indicative reliance on sunlight shadow calculations relative to the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance portal and/or the occupants at about 12:01pm/01:00pm CST (12:01/13:00) on 11/22/'63. Therefor, my questions are, as stated, an effort for, hopefully, some discussion clarification indicative of actual assertion(s) ramification(s).

The azimuth of the sun is not trivial if you are trying to work out the angles of shadows caused by the entrance columns. The sun's elevation is important for calculating the shadow cast by the horizontal lintel over the entrance. If you can't see that I can't be bothered explaining any more. It's like casting pearls before swine.
as it happens, Stancek has the shadows exactly right in his creations.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 28, 2018, 07:42:25 PM
I cannot see how Andej might claim that's real shadow on BL without moving his own shadow line, that's why it's so on-topic.
Also, we have to find the blow up of Lovelady in Hughes because in it he actually pops out and then back in the shadows's true posion close to the west wall and everyone who's seen it assumes Lovelady moved well to his left before Wiegman reacted.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 28, 2018, 07:50:54 PM
I was reminded of this poor chap.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ta6bDz8.jpg)
Probably just following his wife or friend back to the TSBD after she took off running.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 28, 2018, 07:56:37 PM
The azimuth of the sun is not trivial if you are trying to work out the angles of shadows caused by the entrance columns. The sun's elevation is important for calculating the shadow cast by the horizontal lintel over the entrance. If you can't see that I can't be bothered explaining any more. It's like casting pearls before swine.
as it happens, Stancek has the shadows exactly right in his creations.

It appears to me that the sunlight angles are important to someone wishing to qualify mannequin placement on a virtual landing/stairway portal. But, azimuth calculations are trivial to most of us that study the reliable provable evidence indicative of said portal occupants as the area was filmed. To state Stancek has "the shadows exactly right in his creations", can only be a conclusion, nothing more. I certainly question his "insertions" of images, especially those not seen otherwise, and as well his "to scale measurements".
And, I do not recall ever stating that sunlight origin calculations had no bearing on shadow length and/or shadow angle. What I have not seen is, any calculations allowing for the angle of the TSBD Building and/or entrance portal.
Most important though, when you say that if I can't see something you state, you can't be bothered anymore, and "It's like casting pearls before swine", tell me, exactly what are you saying? Are you indicating something negative about my character?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 28, 2018, 08:10:07 PM
Larry do you have the full stabilzed Darnell footage?
Concentrate on the east corner at the very end, there's some noise there, could be someone tucked out of sight, or not...
That's the only "insertion" you're talking about correct? In that same general area Andrej sees a small head and shoulders in a frame or two.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 28, 2018, 08:56:51 PM
Alan, Page 182 of Oswald leaving TSBD thread, Thomas Graves posted the Hughes gif.
Might be another one even more zoomed in somewhere, that's what I remember anyway.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 28, 2018, 10:06:22 PM
Alan, Page 182 of Oswald leaving TSBD thread, Thomas Graves posted the Hughes gif.
Might be another one even more zoomed in somewhere, that's what I remember anyway.

Here we are, Barry. Seems to be shielding his eyes from the sun then going back into the shadows.

(https://i.imgur.com/UglnVrv.gif)

I'd always just assumed it was Lovelady, but now----------with the west pillar shadow in Wiegman ruled out-----------I'm not so sure...

Maybe it's Sarah Stanton!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 28, 2018, 10:46:27 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/v4YOzdY.jpg)

Harold Weisberg's print of Wiegman frame.

Dark jacket?

(Side note: look at how the sun illuminates Prayer Man's hand. It's blinding!)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 28, 2018, 11:52:16 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/UglnVrv.gif)

Friends, please look very closely at the area behind Red Shirt Man's left (east) shoulder.

I believe we can see a figure in the Lovelady-in-Wiegman position up the steps, wearing a dark (blue?) jacket.

Look very very closely and you will even get a brief glimpse of red in the centre area of this figure   :o


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 12:09:51 AM
To orient you as you watch!

(https://i.imgur.com/WHymU4F.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/UglnVrv.gif)

Billy Nolan Lovelady, dark open jacket over red plaid shirt!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 12:14:23 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ULqqZSK.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/UglnVrv.gif)

Lee Harvey Oswald, reddish shirt!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 01:07:00 AM
Until those dismissing the idea that Lovelady was wearing a dark unfastened jacket on the steps can offer a better explanation for the dark border running down his side in Wiegman, their dismissals are worthless. Their failure to even ATTEMPT to rebut Barry and my clear demonstration that the dark border cannot possibly be a shadow cast by the west pillar speaks volumes! 
Walk:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 29, 2018, 01:11:57 AM
Alan, thanks for bringing that over, I'm a bit disabled at the present HW wise, so we have the Wiegman gif that shows "BL" going... down/up, when he's up, he's leaning and it syncs with Altgens v nicely, seconds apart at the most, so I'm still satisified atm it's the same shirted man.
If I found the closer cropped version of Hughes you might see evidence of PM there(I think we do), it's just a splash of something, can't remember noticing what you are pointing to before now but my instinct tells me it could be evidence of Frazier.
Yes, in response to your latest post, you need the closer crop to see evidence of PM, there is minor evidence that someone is already in PM's position behind what you circled, can't remember if the Bell film helps this or not...

Can you see the black guy clapping then putting his big hand up to wave? Might be just my imagination but if true then inspiration enough for anyone behind him to move.







Have to share.
Imagine if Lovelady, instead of doing everything to protect his private life from "the buffs" actually capitalized on his fame, like Frazier did as time went on,
would it look something like this?
Damn song stuck in my head.
This isn't real... reggae.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 01:29:08 AM
Actually MrFord, I don't recall any proof to rebut, and have seen nothing to be a clear demonstration that the dark border cannot be a shadow, regardless of origin. ::)

I cordially refer Mr Trotter to Reply#801 on this thread. Looking forward to his rebuttal of my analysis!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 01:30:49 AM
Have to share.
Imagine if Lovelady, instead of doing everything to protect his private life from "the buffs" actually capitalized on his fame, like Frazier did as time went on,
would it look something like this?
Damn song stuck in my head.
This isn't real... reggae.

We already have a barmy Two Oswalds theory, so why not two Loveladys too?   :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 29, 2018, 01:37:48 AM
RE: Stanton not being able to see the President.
Look at Shelley in Altgens, is he able to see the President? Clearly not, because he's just not trying/bothered.
Sarah too only has to be looking the other way to not see him, not stuck behind some pillar/wall.
Turn on, tune in or drop out.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 02:09:32 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ZdDREE7.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/FPo2Y4Q.jpg)

The reason we never noticed Billy in the Billy-in-Wiegman area was
-------------------we only had eyes for a red shirt!  :'(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 02:28:31 AM
What I have not seen is, any calculations allowing for the angle of the TSBD Building and/or entrance portal.

So you are alleging that Andrej Stancak made his digital recreation of the entrance area without considering the angle of the TSBD building and/or entrance portal? That's a very serious allegation to make, Mr Trotter. What evidence do you have for it? More to the point: what evidence have you looked for? Have you gone to Mr Stancak's website and perused his detailed explanations of how the recreation was undertaken? Yes or no? Have you specific data-based grounds upon which to refute the angle at which he puts the TSBD Building and/or entrance portal? Yes or no? Or are you just blowing hot air?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 29, 2018, 02:50:00 AM
It appears to me that the sunlight angles are important to someone wishing to qualify mannequin placement on a virtual landing/stairway portal. But, azimuth calculations are trivial to most of us that study the reliable provable evidence indicative of said portal occupants as the area was filmed. To state Stancek has "the shadows exactly right in his creations", can only be a conclusion, nothing more. I certainly question his "insertions" of images, especially those not seen otherwise, and as well his "to scale measurements".
And, I do not recall ever stating that sunlight origin calculations had no bearing on shadow length and/or shadow angle. What I have not seen is, any calculations allowing for the angle of the TSBD Building and/or entrance portal.
Most important though, when you say that if I can't see something you state, you can't be bothered anymore, and "It's like casting pearls before swine", tell me, exactly what are you saying? Are you indicating something negative about my character?

Bumped for MrAlanFord, should he wish to accurately quote this post made earlier in this thread as a reply to a post by MrRayMitcham.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 03:03:39 AM
Bumped for MrAlanFord, should he wish to accurately quote this post made earlier in this thread as a reply to a post by MrRayMitcham.

Hot air it is so. Thanks for confirming.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 29, 2018, 03:36:30 AM
Unless a specific quote is provided, chances are an indicated statement was not actually made, and/or not in the context indicated.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 12:10:55 PM
Friends! One reason many are struggling to believe Lovelady was wearing a jacket over his plaid shirt at the time of the shooting is that the Altgens6 photo appears to show the left sleeve of his plaid shirt

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

But appearances can be deceptive!
Notice how Lovelady's left arm gets oddly WIDER as it goes down and seems to come out in FRONT of Carl Jones's neck?
That's because we're looking at it upside down
--------------it's not an arm going down
--------------it's an arm raised in the air
--------------by a spectator out in the street!
It doesn't belong to Lovelady!

For purely illustrative purposes so we can all see how our eyes have been tricking us!...

(https://i.imgur.com/8UNAACD.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 29, 2018, 12:44:11 PM
Friends! One reason many are struggling to believe Lovelady was wearing a jacket over his plaid shirt at the time of the shooting is that the Altgens6 photo appears to show the left sleeve of his plaid shirt

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

But appearances can be deceptive!
Notice how Lovelady's left arm gets oddly WIDER as it goes down and seems to come out in FRONT of Carl Jones's neck?
That's because we're looking at it upside down
--------------it's not an arm going down
--------------it's an arm raised in the air
--------------by a spectator out in the street!
It doesn't belong to Lovelady!

For purely illustrative purposes so we can all see how our eyes have been tricking us!...

(https://i.imgur.com/8UNAACD.jpg)
It would be interesting to know whose arm it could be if it isn't Lovelady's.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 12:46:25 PM
From the Fritz Notes:

(https://i.imgur.com/VkOpSp4.jpg)

No wonder Doorwayman in Altgens spooked the investigators so much!

(https://i.imgur.com/UglnVrv.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 12:48:32 PM
It would be interesting to know whose arm it could be if it isn't Lovelady's.

Someone a bit further down the street, Ray. IIRC someone offered a pretty convincing candidate from the Towner film a few years back!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 01:02:49 PM
CE151, the shirt LHO wore to work that day:

(https://i.imgur.com/SZLHqq5.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/UglnVrv.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 01:25:17 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/gLoXTDT.jpg)

Oops!  :-X

Source:
(https://i.imgur.com/LNVOHp6.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 29, 2018, 02:29:06 PM
I do not recall making statements attributed to me by MrRayMitcham in this post. Perhaps he can provide any quotes along with his explanation for his statement(s).

Quote by Larry Trotter. ( Reply #812 on: June 28, 2018, 06:32:13 PM)
"I agree that the azimuth calculations are trivial, but there is a lot of indicative reliance on sunlight shadow calculations relative to the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance portal and/or the occupants at about 12:01pm/01:00pm CST (12:01/13:00) on 11/22/'63.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 29, 2018, 02:32:33 PM
Someone a bit further down the street, Ray. IIRC someone offered a pretty convincing candidate from the Towner film a few years back!

I believe that it is Lovelady's arm in the photo, not some unknown down person down the street.

It seems  this is confirmed by bucket filling the shirt that he is wearing in yellow, which shows that it is exactly the same colour. You may have to enlarge to see the detail.

(https://s33.postimg.cc/xwgpoxvmz/Lovelady_in_doorway.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/xwgpoxvmz/)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 29, 2018, 02:38:10 PM
Very well said, Ray!

As MrAlanFord has expressed his approval and agreement with MrRayMitcham's comments as posted regarding a statement made by me, maybe he can provide a quote, the full statement quote, and explain what it is that he is referring to.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 29, 2018, 02:40:38 PM
Quote by Larry Trotter. ( Reply #812 on: June 28, 2018, 06:32:13 PM)
"I agree that the azimuth calculations are trivial, but there is a lot of indicative reliance on sunlight shadow calculations relative to the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance portal and/or the occupants at about 12:01pm/01:00pm CST (12:01/13:00) on 11/22/'63.
Bump for Mr Trotter.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 29, 2018, 02:43:01 PM
It appears to me that the sunlight angles are important to someone wishing to qualify mannequin placement on a virtual landing/stairway portal. But, azimuth calculations are trivial to most of us that study the reliable provable evidence indicative of said portal occupants as the area was filmed. To state Stancek has "the shadows exactly right in his creations", can only be a conclusion, nothing more. I certainly question his "insertions" of images, especially those not seen otherwise, and as well his "to scale measurements".
And, I do not recall ever stating that sunlight origin calculations had no bearing on shadow length and/or shadow angle. What I have not seen is, any calculations allowing for the angle of the TSBD Building and/or entrance portal.
Most important though, when you say that if I can't see something you state, you can't be bothered anymore, and "It's like casting pearls before swine", tell me, exactly what are you saying? Are you indicating something negative about my character?

Bumped for MrRayMitcham to review.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 03:13:36 PM
I believe that it is Lovelady's arm in the photo, not some unknown down person down the street.

It seems  this is confirmed by bucket filling the shirt that he is wearing in yellow, which shows that it is exactly the same colour. You may have to enlarge to see the detail.

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

Depends on the Tolerance setting and where on the image one clicks!

(https://i.imgur.com/bh4Q2OC.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 29, 2018, 03:21:40 PM
In Reply to MrRayMitcham:

I offered an opinion during a posted conversation with another poster about "relative" provable evidence. I stand by my post. You sir, did not quote the complete statement, but more importantly, the quote you offered does not address your posted comments. The posted comments by you, that I requested quoting, indicating things I had said. The complete quote, of the complete statement, that you attributed to me.
As stated, I stand by my posted opinion, as it relates to the post/conversation I was replying to.

While at it, maybe you can also explain your meaning as stated in another post, as I had asked in reply, since, to me it appears "insulting".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 29, 2018, 03:35:13 PM
In Reply to MrRayMitcham:

I offered an opinion during a posted conversation with another poster about "relative" provable evidence. I stand by my post. You sir, did not quote the complete statement, but more importantly, the quote you offered does not address your posted comments. The posted comments by you, that I requested quoting, indicating things I had said. The complete quote, of the complete statement, that you attributed to me.
As stated, I stand by my posted opinion, as it relates to the post/conversation I was replying to.

While at it, maybe you can also explain your meaning as stated in another post, as I had asked in reply, since, to me it appears "insulting".
More garrulous rubbish by Mr Trotter. You agreed that the azimuth of the sun was trivial. You say that Stancek used a software program which mistook the depository as being straight North/South and East/West orientation. Where did you get that information from? Or is just your guess? Funny that he got the angle of the sun correct in his presentation i.e. that @ 12.30 pm. the left column would cast a shadow of 18˚ onto the steps of the TSBD. Or do you dispute that as well? If so show your calculations.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 29, 2018, 03:38:46 PM
This thread

To All Concerned, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE

No more warnings.....Do not insult fellow members...No more warnings.

Instant Non Negotiable 7 days ban to the next person who posts a personal insult towards a fellow member of this Forum.

Suggesting that a fellow member is a Troll is considered by Admin to be a personal insult.....Be Warned.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 29, 2018, 03:47:53 PM
Is saying that I believe somebody is spouting garrulous rubbish an insult, Duncan? Just making sure?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 29, 2018, 04:34:06 PM
Is saying that I believe somebody is spouting garrulous rubbish an insult, Duncan? Just making sure?

You can insult the research, but not the researcher.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 29, 2018, 04:37:29 PM
Thanks for the reply, Duncan. Does "lying eyes" count as an insult?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 29, 2018, 04:39:37 PM
Thanks for the reply, Duncan. Does "lying eyes" count as an insult?

Not in the context that it was posted, Ray.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 29, 2018, 04:42:46 PM
Not in the context that it was posted, Ray.

 In which context is quote "So what do you believe Ray, Stancak's cooked graphics or your own lying eyes?' Not a personal insult, Duncan?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 29, 2018, 10:06:04 PM
A HORRIBLY crude first attempt to establish the comparative heights of Billy Nolan Lovelady (5'8?") and Prayer Man!

(https://i.imgur.com/5ccQp3V.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on June 29, 2018, 10:34:41 PM
LOS and a visible notched brick:

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1786/28227044347_8457a4ddc3_o.png)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on June 29, 2018, 10:41:49 PM
Movie version:
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/entrance.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 30, 2018, 12:05:24 AM
In Reply to MrRayMitcham:

I offered an opinion during a posted conversation with another poster about "relative" provable evidence. I stand by my post. You sir, did not quote the complete statement, but more importantly, the quote you offered does not address your posted comments. The posted comments by you, that I requested quoting, indicating things I had said. The complete quote, of the complete statement, that you attributed to me.
As stated, I stand by my posted opinion, as it relates to the post/conversation I was replying to.

While at it, maybe you can also explain your meaning as stated in another post, as I had asked in reply, since, to me it appears "insulting".

MrRayMitcham has not provided the requested proper quote, and unless he does, there is an appearance of failing to adequately provide justifications for his assertions. And, he has yet to clarify his "swine" comment, that to me appears insulting.
Trying to be polite is not easy when dealing with the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory assertions, and if I am banned from here, so be it. But, I know and acknowledge my posts, and I will not politely allow the assertions beyond fact be attached to my name without an appropriate response,


In any event, for clarification, it is my substantially long held conclusion that any occupant in the TSBD Elm St portal, and on the stairs/landing just as the limousine occupied by JohnKennedySr and MrsJacquelineKennedy, as well as JohnConnallyJr and MrsIdanellConnally, along with the SS Driver and Codriver drove past said portal, can and should be identifiable by viewing images film/pictures, and/or by known other portal occupants and/or eyewitness statements/testimony.

Therefor, it is my conclusion, that any sunlight origin and/or shadow angle and/or length is trivial information as it pertains to the situational event occuring at the TSBD Elm St entrance stairs/landing portal and accompanying occupant image identification at or about 12:30pm CST. on 11/22/'63.

That is as clear as I can be, and any statement be attributed to myself on this forum, should not be, and will not be by me, considered valid unless accompanied with a direct complete statement quote of said statement, as well as any post being responded to by said statement. Otherwise, any statement attributed to me, without proper quoting, should be, and will be by me, considered untruthful and/or dishonest.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 30, 2018, 01:21:53 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/v4YOzdY.jpg)



What I see is Lovelady very close to getting an elbow to the head and until I see proof overwise that's where he was at, within touching distance of that railing.

If this "shadow" is a photographic anomally it wouldn't be the first in this evidence.
Two examples that spring to mind;
later in the Wiegamn film itself, in the best frames available there is no evidence of Zapruder and Sitzman on that pedestal, yet they must be stil there. What have researchers said in the past about that? Evidence of forgery! Another is the Moorman photo.
We know there was someone still stood behind that wall near the corner, he/she is there in Willis and Groden found movement up there in Nix during the shooting ityself and immeadiatly after, and yet in Mary's classic shot we cannot see any sign of this person.
Are these examples exactly the same as the BL problem? No but perhaps still worth considering.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on June 30, 2018, 02:26:58 AM
Hello. I'd like to add my 2 cents to the discussions of the shadows in the doorway. In particular my 3D modeling result is consistent with the shadow angles modeled by Andrej and discussed by Ray. I use a NS offset of 14.5degrees from true north and solar data from the US Navy Observatory.

aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php

The animation to the right attempts to model the deep shadow in the portal, simulating the Wiegman film. Both animations of the same scene run from 12:30 to 3 pm.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gnClOhJTaTaEDNPgBtNu7l1u1uNXJKwG/view?usp=sharing

Optional reading..
Observers will notice I'm not using the SketchUp modeler, but am using the free open source ray tracing software POV-Ray. I've used POV-Ray for many years and still enjoy the software. The application of modeling Dealey Plaza in this software is to my knowledge unique. This ray tracer is rich with commands and techniques for control and management of light and shadows. Two major downsides to the software are total lack of any reasonable means to model vegetation e.g. trees and lacks any built-in function to model humans, or animals for that matter. The human like volunteers in my modeling are my creations after nearly many years of evolution, but are still primitive. 

Anyway, I'm happy to turn in my lurker's badge and plan to post from time to time.

James
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 30, 2018, 02:36:22 AM
Hello. I'd like to add my 2 cents to the discussions of the shadows in the doorway. In particular my 3D modeling result is consistent with the shadow angles modeled by Andrej and discussed by Ray. I use a NS offset of 14.5degrees from true north and solar data from the US Navy Observatory.

aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php

The animation to the right attempts to model the deep shadow in the portal, simulating the Wiegman film. Both animations of the same scene run from 12:30 to 3 pm.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gnClOhJTaTaEDNPgBtNu7l1u1uNXJKwG/view?usp=sharing

Super stuff, Mr Hackerott! So good to get a view of the Wiegman scene  Thumb1:

Have you any thoughts on how we get from this lit up Lovelady----------

(https://i.imgur.com/EpgP3tF.gif)

----------to this half-'shadowed' Lovelady?

(https://i.imgur.com/v4YOzdY.jpg)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on June 30, 2018, 02:49:07 AM
Thank you Alan,

To be honest I was testing the same theory attributed to Stancak. He stated it much more elegant that I would. I will play around with this idea a little, but am very interested in how it all plays out.

James
 
sorry Alan
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 30, 2018, 02:52:14 AM
To be honest I was testing the same theory attributed to Stancak. He stated it much more elegant that I would. I will play around with this idea a little, but am very interested in how it all plays out.

James

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 30, 2018, 02:59:31 AM
More garrulous rubbish by Mr Trotter. You agreed that the azimuth of the sun was trivial. You say that Stancek used a software program which mistook the depository as being straight North/South and East/West orientation. Where did you get that information from? Or is just your guess? Funny that he got the angle of the sun correct in his presentation i.e. that @ 12.30 pm. the left column would cast a shadow of 18˚ onto the steps of the TSBD. Or do you dispute that as well? If so show your calculations.

And I said that? When? Where? Can you locate and post a quote for "You say_______________________ __________________________________________________________________________________"
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 30, 2018, 10:03:51 AM
MrRayMitcham has not provided the requested proper quote, and unless he does, there is an appearance of failing to adequately provide justifications for his assertions. And, he has yet to clarify his "swine" comment, that to me appears insulting.
Trying to be polite is not easy when dealing with the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory assertions, and if I am banned from here, so be it. But, I know and acknowledge my posts, and I will not politely allow the assertions beyond fact be attached to my name without an appropriate response,


In any event, for clarification, it is my substantially long held conclusion that any occupant in the TSBD Elm St portal, and on the stairs/landing just as the limousine occupied by JohnKennedySr and MrsJacquelineKennedy, as well as JohnConnallyJr and MrsIdanellConnally, along with the SS Driver and Codriver drove past said portal, can and should be identifiable by viewing images film/pictures, and/or by known other portal occupants and/or eyewitness statements/testimony.

Therefor, it is my conclusion, that any sunlight origin and/or shadow angle and/or length is trivial information as it pertains to the situational event occuring at the TSBD Elm St entrance stairs/landing portal and accompanying occupant image identification at or about 12:30pm CST. on 11/22/'63.

That is as clear as I can be, and any statement be attributed to myself on this forum, should not be, and will not be by me, considered valid unless accompanied with a direct complete statement quote of said statement, as well as any post being responded to by said statement. Otherwise, any statement attributed to me, without proper quoting, should be, and will be by me, considered untruthful and/or dishonest.

Quote by Trotter
"It appears to me that the sunlight angles are important to someone wishing to qualify mannequin placement on a virtual landing/stairway portal. But, azimuth calculations are trivial to most of us that study the reliable provable evidence indicative of said portal occupants as the area was filmed. To state Stancek has "the shadows exactly right in his creations", can only be a conclusion, nothing more. I certainly question his "insertions" of images, especially those not seen otherwise, and as well his "to scale measurements".
And, I do not recall ever stating that sunlight origin calculations had no bearing on shadow length and/or shadow angle. What I have not seen is,[sic] any calculations allowing for the angle of the TSBD Building and/or entrance portal.
Most important though, when you say that if I can't see something you state, you can't be bothered anymore, and "It's like casting pearls before swine", tell me, exactly what are you saying? Are you indicating something negative about my character?"

You confirm above that  you said that the subject of the angle of the sun's shadows was trivial.

The expression "casting pearls before swine" means to offer something valuable or good to someone who does not know its value.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 30, 2018, 01:00:57 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/RCcg8aB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TpJ0q0p.jpg)

Great minds calculate alike!  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 30, 2018, 01:12:31 PM
If only this--------------

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

---------------had been filmed at 14.20!

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

I still say dark jacket

Ironically, Buell Frazier told Gary Mack he was wearing a dark blue jacket out on the steps as it was quite cool outside that day
------------but Darnell tells a different story...

(https://i.imgur.com/635AnPy.jpg)

Maybe Frazier saw poor Billy shivering on the steps and lent him his jacket!  ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 30, 2018, 02:07:43 PM
Lovelady in this----------

(https://i.imgur.com/RCcg8aB.jpg)

----------corresponds to Higer Lovelady in this----------

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

Lovelady goes down a step, which puts him two steps down from the landing

-----------=one step down from Prayer Man

(https://i.imgur.com/mZeLRl9.gif)

Prayer Man: one step down from the landing
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 30, 2018, 02:34:45 PM
Alan, the blowup of Hughes where we may or may not see evidence of PM was posted on the bottom of P137 of the Oswald...TSBD thread(and if I sent you to the wrong page last time please except my sincere apologies, I may have earmarked the wrong one and just realised it, this time I doublechecked...).

Also, what you just mentioned about Frazier's jacket, I remember him saying to Gary that he had on probably work boots and denim jeans and yes he did mention his " young farmers logo" jacket but was he sure about that part? Anyway, I agree it's not very likely, it should be very noticable in Darnell.

Thanks for all these images it's appreciated and that little Darnell/Weigman overlay suggests to me that Lovelady was further east than Reese, so I still think he's leaning onto/over the rail in Altgens. I have not the slightest compulsion to put him where the shadow was.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 30, 2018, 02:43:58 PM
Hello. I'd like to add my 2 cents to the discussions of the shadows in the doorway. In particular my 3D modeling result is consistent with the shadow angles modeled by Andrej and discussed by Ray. I use a NS offset of 14.5degrees from true north and solar data from the US Navy Observatory.
...

Thanks for sharing James, great entry to the thread.
I'd be interested to know how you pinned down Lovelady's poition and also if you could show a 12:30pm slide without the guy on the bottom step because he's blocking any comparison to shadows in other visual evidence.
PS,
your position for PM does not allow for him/her to be blocking the heater/radiator from Darnell's POV, was that a concious decision?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 30, 2018, 03:04:29 PM
Movie version:

Chris Thank you,
Is there any way you can carefully superimpose PM onto a frame of this that shows the radiator/heater?
I thought PM/W was blocking it and frames where others see it... unconvincing,
if you feel it's worth the trouble or possible.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 30, 2018, 03:40:09 PM
Alan, the blowup of Hughes where we may or may not see evidence of PM was posted on the bottom of P137 of the Oswald...TSBD thread(and if I sent you to the wrong page last time please except my sincere apologies, I may have earmarked the wrong one and just realised it, this time I doublechecked...).

No problem, Barry, and thanks for this  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/6ARDlzt.gif)

Interesting!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 30, 2018, 03:59:05 PM
A HORRIBLY crude first attempt to establish the comparative heights of Billy Nolan Lovelady (5'8?") and Prayer Man!

(https://i.imgur.com/5ccQp3V.jpg)

Options!

Prayer Man is either
-----------------------of similar height to Lovelady (= 1 step down) ~5'8?"
-----------------------approx. 7 inches smaller than Lovelady (= on the landing) ~5'1?"
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on June 30, 2018, 07:21:13 PM
Thanks for sharing James, great entry to the thread.
I'd be interested to know how you pinned down Lovelady's poition and also if you could show a 12:30pm slide without the guy on the bottom step because he's blocking any comparison to shadows in other visual evidence.

Barry thank you,
Saying I pinned down Lovelady's position is generous. More like estimated from comparison with a frame of Wiegman, some time in the past.  I'll be happy to modify graphics if a better location is suggested.

As far as PP blocking or not blocking the radiator that was not an issue to me. I don't see how PP could block the radiator and still be in total shadow.

PS,
your position for PM does not allow for him/her to be blocking the heater/radiator from Darnell's POV, was that a concious decision?

Below is a slide comparing Darnell (left) to Wiegman (without the dark shadow). Both POVs should allow viewing at least some of the radiator, as long as someone else is not blocking the view. If you would like a different view please advise.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UWvHZzaT8BxYBgpX4UHNUH4x67VM8jbo/view?usp=sharing



James
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on June 30, 2018, 07:43:23 PM
Brian,

Thanks for messaging me on Facebook with information that Wanda, the relative of Sarah Stanton said "no, it isn't her grand mother...Wanda said "she is too thin, too old, has dark hair, and is out there at a time that is too late to be Sarah...Not Sarah" she says...

I look forward to hearing your recorded conversation with her, without leading questions, as requested by myself on this Forum, for verification purposes.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on June 30, 2018, 09:03:36 PM
Quote by Trotter
"It appears to me that the sunlight angles are important to someone wishing to qualify mannequin placement on a virtual landing/stairway portal. But, azimuth calculations are trivial to most of us that study the reliable provable evidence indicative of said portal occupants as the area was filmed. To state Stancek has "the shadows exactly right in his creations", can only be a conclusion, nothing more. I certainly question his "insertions" of images, especially those not seen otherwise, and as well his "to scale measurements".
And, I do not recall ever stating that sunlight origin calculations had no bearing on shadow length and/or shadow angle. What I have not seen is,[sic] any calculations allowing for the angle of the TSBD Building and/or entrance portal.
Most important though, when you say that if I can't see something you state, you can't be bothered anymore, and "It's like casting pearls before swine", tell me, exactly what are you saying? Are you indicating something negative about my character?"

You confirm above that  you said that the subject of the angle of the sun's shadows was trivial.

The expression "casting pearls before swine" means to offer something valuable or good to someone who does not know its value.

I can assure you that I understood the expressed meaning of your, beyond doubt, insulting of another forum member statement, "casting pearls before swine".
Exactly what, MrRayMitcham, uh sir, is your problem with, "What I have not seen is, any calculations allowing for the angle of the TSBD Building and/or entrance portal"? Even I can look at a map and see that it doesn't face due south, and is at a similar angle as Old Elm St, but appears to be, without measurement, facing about 165? south. In any event, any virtual entrance portal using a male mannequin in the estimated place of PrayerPersonImage, lacks meaningful credibility, at least to me. For that reason, I have not, and will not, rely on the virtual entrance portal information and mannequin placement. Therefor, I pay very little attention to the, uh, gentleman's efforts, and if said angle was mentioned during measurement discussions on this forum, I did not see the discussion and/or angle measurement factor inclusive comment.
Certainly, when you, uh MrRayMitcham, uh, sir, repeat something I said, without providing the complete statement with context meaning, your "repeat" is without honesty and truthfulness.
Certainly, I am sure you undoubtedly meant to indicate and insult me, but perhaps a look in the mirror would be appropriate prior offering another forum member insult like, "casting pearls before swine".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 30, 2018, 09:04:31 PM
Another very helpful image, Mr Hackerott!  Thumb1:

Off-topic from radiator but important nonetheless!:

Placement of Prayer Man-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/eNK9aqE.png)

One of the points Stancak keeps hammering home is the position of PM's right elbow
-------------short gap (from Wiegman/Darnell POV) between it and brickwork section beside white pillar

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

Stancak argues that "Prayer Man's location in Darnell is a tight geometric problem which has only one solution"
------------and that having him on the landing simply doesn't work because it pushes the right elbow too far from the brickwork section.

Your thoughts on this appreciated!

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on June 30, 2018, 09:14:51 PM
Scaled to fit previous Darnell LOS designation:
Radiator would probably reside somewhat higher than it appears on the superimposed Darnell frame. Imo

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xr7FEvgosjYZ4kEu70xWXn7bO_PQvLr5/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xr7FEvgosjYZ4kEu70xWXn7bO_PQvLr5/view?usp=sharing)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 30, 2018, 09:28:45 PM
Friends, it's possible, of course, that the excellent Stancak has found the solution to Prayer Man's location but that his suggested posture of left knee bent up a step------------

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

-------------is incorrect.

Prayer Man's upper body could be exactly as Stancak proposes, and his right leg could be on the first step down as Stancak proposes, BUT
---------------his left knee could be bent beneath him, allowing the ball of his left foot to rest on the landing
OR
---------------his left leg could be crossed over his right leg, allowing the ball of his left foot to rest on the first step down.

Try standing on a stairs like this, folks. I have just done so and they're both perfectly natural and easy postures, allowing one to lean in comfortably to the right hip. No health & safety issues raised!  Thumb1:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 30, 2018, 10:38:04 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/MJu87PP.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 30, 2018, 11:04:08 PM
I quite like Sean Murphy's suggestion
------------part-eaten apple in right hand, coke in left

Would explain the curious 'praying' hands that stop praying when he raises the white object to his mouth!

(https://i.imgur.com/gBo0R1q.jpg)

On an entirely unrelated note, LHO told Fritz he had an apple, cheese sandwich & coke for lunch...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on June 30, 2018, 11:26:21 PM
Options!

Prayer Man is either
-----------------------of similar height to Lovelady (= 1 step down) ~5'8?"
-----------------------approx. 7 inches smaller than Lovelady (= on the landing) ~5'1?"


Friends! If you look closely (as I know you ALWAYS do), you can make out Frazier behind Lovelady in Wiegman:

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

Lovelady only reaches up to Frazier's chinny chin chin.

We all KNOW that Billy Lovelady (5'8?") is on the landing, right?
Only an unscientific researcher would say otherwise.
This scientific observation about Lovelady being on the landing (and in shadow of the west pillar) allows us to establish that
---------------just as Prayer Man cannot be LHO because he's on the landing and is thus too small
---------------Billy Lovelady cannot be Billy Lovelady because he's on the landing and is thus too small

(https://i.imgur.com/5ccQp3V.jpg)

This puts the Prayer Man nonsense to rest once and for all:

-'Prayer Man' is Sarah Stanton (wearing a wig)
-Billy Lovelady' is Pauline Sanders, who said she was beside Stanton on the east (she, not being a scientist, meant west) side of the entrance
-Lee Oswald is in the second-floor lunchroom, still staring at that coke
-Billy Nolan Lovelady is dashing across the sixth floor while checking to see if he has change for the coke machine


Now on to the RFK assassination.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 12:23:10 AM
Below is a slide comparing Darnell (left) to Wiegman (without the dark shadow). Both POVs should allow viewing at least some of the radiator, as long as someone else is not blocking the view. If you would like a different view please advise.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UWvHZzaT8BxYBgpX4UHNUH4x67VM8jbo/view?usp=sharing



James

James thank you for that and your thoughts.
You've noticed too the slight glitch in your shadow running up the steps which effects everything above it? Was that corrected in your animation, looks like it.
I recently noticed in the evidence that on each of the lower risers the shadow doubles in length, just wanted to see if yours matches.
Also yes "pinpoint" for your work I meant :)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 12:30:04 AM
I quite like Sean Murphy's suggestion
------------part-eaten apple in right hand, coke in left

Would explain the curious 'praying' hands that stop praying when he raises the white object to his mouth!


On an entirely unrelated note, LHO told Fritz he had an apple, cheese sandwich & coke for lunch...

And poor Frazier, who according to him had yet to eat and was sooo hungry, he went down the basement after this major event and stayed there stuffing his face.
Now we know where his mind was at, "Apple, goood."  :P
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 12:41:25 AM
Friends, it's possible, of course, that the excellent Stancak has found the solution to Prayer Man's location but that his suggested posture of left knee bent up a step------------

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

-------------is incorrect.

Prayer Man's upper body could be exactly as Stancak proposes, and his right leg could be on the first step down as Stancak proposes, BUT
---------------his left knee could be bent beneath him, allowing the ball of his left foot to rest on the landing
OR
---------------his left leg could be crossed over his right leg, allowing the ball of his left foot to rest on the first step down.

Try standing on a stairs like this, folks. I have just done so and they're both perfectly natural and easy postures, allowing one to lean in comfortably to the right hip. No health & safety issues raised!  Thumb1:

All we have to do is ask ourselves one easy question; Do the women on the east in Darnell who are turned even further to to side have to have their legs up?
Can you even imagine those woman putting their legs up in a public place?
So I agree Alan, it just doesn't have to be and might be better without it.
The leg up has always been an interpretation and we've been straining to see it, it loses nothing when it's gone, could still be all on the step like those girls opposite PM, one of whom was pregnant, so even less likely to get her leg over up.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 12:56:22 AM
Scaled to fit previous Darnell LOS designation:
Radiator would probably reside somewhat higher than it appears on the superimposed Darnell frame. Imo

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xr7FEvgosjYZ4kEu70xWXn7bO_PQvLr5/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xr7FEvgosjYZ4kEu70xWXn7bO_PQvLr5/view?usp=sharing)

I can't see this on my old rig, only still images come through on Googledrive, I know...
would love to see it though and if you could upload it in another older format just this time I would appreciate it Chris.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 01:10:38 AM
Friends! If you look closely (as I know you ALWAYS do), you can make out Frazier behind Lovelady in Wiegman:

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

Lovelady only reaches up to Frazier's chinny chin chin!

We all KNOW that Billy Lovelady (5'8?") is on the landing, right?
Cool  Thumb1:
This allows us to establish that
---------------just as Prayer Man cannot be LHO because he's on the landing and is thus too small
---------------Billy Lovelady cannot be Billy Lovelady because he's on the landing and is thus too small  :o

(https://i.imgur.com/5ccQp3V.jpg)

Also, Shelley's must be on the landing because of that shadow covering his eyes and yet there is nothing similar visable on Lovelady.
In the foootage posted by Chris that shows Fritz coming onto the scene we see the tallest cop only getting hit by shadow when he puts both feet on the landing.
Evidence enough there too for that to be Frazier in Wiegman for most of us I think.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on July 01, 2018, 01:26:35 AM
Brian,
The easiest way to address the column and lintel shadows is to create a shadow screen, and sequentially move it from the door to the landing. I've done this 0.2 ft increments. Please note that at no time will that shadow corner come close to Frazier's shoulder. Sorry, I'm not sure what else I could do to help your shadow study.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lTLmVGUaltRlp2dl3TZel3DuH8uaO8ab/view?usp=sharing

p.s.
I tried to post this earlier but I think my reply timed out before it went out. If it is a dup just forget it. It shows the Lovelady figure on the 6th step and shifted 2ft westward in increments of 0.2ft. He just can't reach the column shadow.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bN6mK9flsuFE_m3QkuZlcp_DBUz0rXxx/view?usp=sharing
 
James
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 01:56:08 AM
...
Certainly, I am sure you undoubtedly meant to indicate and insult me, but perhaps a look in the mirror would be appropriate prior offering another forum member insult like, "casting pearls before swine".

...and what was Larry's opinion on the much more obvious, constant and repeated insults directed toward members here and elsewhere, other than himself of course, from one particular person who claims this thread as his own?
Nothing, complete silence, evidently he did not give a damn. Now he's insulted?

Thank you Duncan!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on July 01, 2018, 03:03:43 AM
Barry,
Is it the angled shadow on the fourth riser from the bottom that you suspect might be a glitch? If that is so that angled shadow includes the column base, colored gray and simplified as a square block. It is of smaller size than the big block it sits on. Tomorrow I can make some simple graphics that breakup the riser shadows into their respective sources.
Thanks for questioning what looks odd  ;)
 
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/105OOmKgUp9Uc_i7sPkLDEu6n9L8Wtghm/view?usp=sharing)

James
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 01, 2018, 04:27:54 AM
Looking at the general shape of the person.. the shading of the shirt/or top etc
Could this individual.......


(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6mf9COHlRYg/VpVHV9k1nrI/AAAAAAAAARI/RUiGhFOaGYo/s320/mysterlady2.gif)

Be this same individual at the bottom right with their back to the camera?
The shirt sleeves in the doorway could be somewhat rolled up....?

 (https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mentesana-11.jpg?w=516&h=342)

 
A little liberty in reproducing here.....

(https://2img.net/h/s6.postimg.cc/6kqwg3o31/100_percent_nl.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 01:10:19 PM
Also, Shelley's must be on the landing because of that shadow covering his eyes and yet there is nothing similar visable on Lovelady.
In the foootage posted by Chris that shows Fritz coming onto the scene we see the tallest cop only getting hit by shadow when he puts both feet on the landing

Exactly x2!  Thumb1:

Lovelady is one step down, then two steps down!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 01:18:25 PM
Stancak's observation that Prayer Man's location poses a "tight geometric problem" also applies to any attempt to place him back at the glass door in the landing corner:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tNl0MlqIl9M/VpVGTQxAF7I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/VfmAr1fnrHM/s320/pmheight.jpg)

Far too much WALL! Far too much DISTANCE from right elbow to brickwork!

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

According to Stancak, placing Prayer Man with both feet ANYWHERE on the landing leads to an elbow-to-brickwork distance too great to be compatible with the Wiegman & Darnell images

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 01:22:08 PM
Question!

Why is Prayer Man's LEFT elbow so much higher in Darnell than in Wiegman?

(https://i.imgur.com/mZeLRl9.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 01:29:48 PM
I'm pretty sure the man in black in Couch is not Bill Shelley but Danny Arce!

(https://i.imgur.com/ztu0WTn.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on July 01, 2018, 02:21:07 PM
Question!

Why is Prayer Man's LEFT elbow so much higher in Darnell than in Wiegman?

(https://i.imgur.com/mZeLRl9.gif)

Can' t tell about his left elbow, Alan,  but his right arm appears to be in the same position in both photos with the white spot looking like  the reflection from silver bracelet.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 02:47:05 PM
Can' t tell about his left elbow, Alan,  but his right arm appears to be in the same position in both photos with the white spot looking like  the reflection from silver bracelet.

Ray, both elbows are perceptibly lower in Wiegman than in Darnell, the left elbow more dramatically so! I doubt POV can account for this. Either Prayer Man is leaning forward in Wiegman or his arms are differently configured.

(https://i.imgur.com/mZeLRl9.gif)

Try standing straight with hands in 'prayer' position and, without moving the rest of your body, lowering your left elbow as much as we see in Wiegman. But make sure to have an orthopedist's number handy first!!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on July 01, 2018, 03:27:08 PM
Ray, both elbows are perceptibly lower in Wiegman than in Darnell, the left elbow more dramatically so! I doubt POV can account for this. Either Prayer Man is leaning forward in Wiegman or his arms are differently configured.

(https://i.imgur.com/mZeLRl9.gif)

Try standing straight with hands in 'prayer' position and, without moving the rest of your body, lowering your left elbow as much as we see in Wiegman. But make sure to have an orthopedist's number handy first!!

Despite trying very hard, I can't actually see the left elbow in the first frame despite adjusting the contrast etc.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 04:33:39 PM
Despite trying very hard, I can't actually see the left elbow in the first frame despite adjusting the contrast etc.

Does this help, Ray?


(https://i.imgur.com/buW5HDG.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/ihpE25k.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/mZeLRl9.gif)

Right hand moves a little east, right elbow comes up accordingly
+
Left arm goes into very different position
-------------if it's still his left elbow/forearm we're seeing in Darnell!

(https://i.imgur.com/oqjyfo8.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ifDUuQC.jpg)
= PRAYER MAN W/ ARMS CROSSED + SOMETHING BEHIND PRAYERMAN?

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 04:59:32 PM
Friends! Take Prayer Man in Stancak's overhead, rotate him so he's facing forward, arms folded (& on first step down):

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

Is this what we're seeing in Darnell? Is the sun catching his left elbow?

(https://i.imgur.com/I8JS9JO.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iMEXrf0.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 01, 2018, 08:19:40 PM
What does that mean?
Why is it important to find out who the prayer person is?
As a reminder:

The PrayerPersonImage identity issue, as I recall, developed in about 2013, some 50 years, one-half century, after the 11/22/'63 assassination of USP JohnKennedySr, and critical wounding of TxG JohnConnallyJr in Dallas' DealeyPlaza, just after their vehicle passing the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building Elm St entrance portal at 12:30pm CST. Although notably some photographs were made, most of the pictures of the portal area just as the shooting had occurred are most likely film stills taken from a moving MotorcadeVehicle/CameraCar, by a hand held motion picture imaging camera.

The PrayerPersonImage is in my conclusion, along with others as well, representing a female then employed at the TSBD Bldg who was, as most of the bldg employees, outside during lunchtime to view the passing motorcade.

The PrayerPersonImage identity had not previously been an issue, as it had no bearing on the evidence relative to the shootings and assassination. That was until someone came along and decided that PrayerPersonImage represented a male, and therefor decided to reference PrayerPersonImage as PrayerMan apparently, because PrayerPersonImage had not, at least to someone, been positively identified.

But, there is more, as since not otherwise identified, someone decided that their PrayerManImageTheory included deceased accused assassination shooter, LeeHarveyOswald, since he also was then employed at the TSBD Bldg and had also not yet been positively identified, in their opinion, anywhere else as filmed at about 12:30pm,CST. Remembering of course, that LeeHarveyOswald was himself shot and killed by JacobLeonRubenstein, aka JackRuby, while in police custody on the morning of 11/24/'63, just two days after the fatal shooting of PresidentKennedy and critical wounding shooting of GovernorConnally. And, LeeHarveyOswald was also the primary suspect in the shooting death of DPD Officer JdTippit in Dallas' OakCliff section, about 45 minutes after the DealeyPlaza shootings.

So, the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory was born. However, since a SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter occurred with LeeHarveyOswald and TSBD BuildingSuperintendent RoyTruly along with DPD MotorcyclePatrolOfficer MarrionBaker at about 12:31pm/12:32pm CST 11/22/'63, a timing problem issue developed. OfficerBaker was a MotorcadeEscort, following several vehicles behind the Presidential Limousine, and he was approaching the TSBD Bldg just ahead of him as he rode along northbound on Houston St, when the shots were fired at the motorcade that had turned onto Elm St and was then westbound. When he reached Elm St, OfficerBaker parked his motorcycle and entered the TSBD Bldg to do a preliminary search, accompanied by RoyTruly. But, unable to locate a then viable suspect, and with other LawOfficers now searching the bldg, OfficerBaker rejoined the Motorcade that had gone to ParklandHospital. So, now for the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory to work, the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounterHoaxTheory was born, due to the timing of both situational events. However, the SecondFloor LunchRoomEncounter has reliable provable evidence that it occurred at about 90 to 120 seconds after the  shooting, and there is no reliable provable evidence indicative of it being a Hoax.

Now, with a history changing event like the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, stories can be told, and articles written, likely by professional story tellers and article writers. And possibly a book, or several books, can be written and then sold. Maybe even a movie or two can be made.

Testimony and sworn statements offer valid evidence that LeeHarveyOswald was not on the  landing or stairs as the filming took place. However, their own sworn statements and eyewitness testimony does place two otherwise unidentified known occupants, SarahStanton and PaulineSanders, on the landing/stairs at the time of the assassination/shooting. So, with questionable if any, Positive Image Identity produced by Image Viewing Alone, the said Eyewitness Testimony narrows the choices to SarahDeanStanton and PaulineRebmanSanders.

Notably, research has now developed evidence indicative of SarahStanton as being the person represented by Prayer PersonImage aka PrayerWomanImage. However, with the continued promotion of the unproven LeeHarveyOswald /PrayerManTheory, an ongoing effort for accuracy and true image identification continues the disputed evidence debate..


Although the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory continues to be just that, a theory, said PrayerWomanImage identity conclusions are based on provable reliable indicative evidence.

For as it goes on...As for on it goes...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 08:23:54 PM
Barry,
Is it the angled shadow on the fourth riser from the bottom that you suspect might be a glitch? If that is so that angled shadow includes the column base, colored gray and simplified as a square block. It is of smaller size than the big block it sits on. Tomorrow I can make some simple graphics that breakup the riser shadows into their respective sources.
Thanks for questioning what looks odd  ;)
 
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/105OOmKgUp9Uc_i7sPkLDEu6n9L8Wtghm/view?usp=sharing)

James

Ahh, I see, thanks James,
is there any evidence you've seen in the images that this actually happened to the shadow on those steps?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 08:40:23 PM
What does that mean?
Why is it important to find out who the prayer person is?

What does someone repeatedly calling an overweight person fat in a public forum say about them you mean? You tell me.

Like many conspiracy theories in this case or many observations in the evidence it's important to test them, especially for those who, if found out to be true, will change everything they have come to believe about the case.
In this case the theory is "Prayer Man is Oswald" and dispite all the effort no one can prove it's not but we remain optimistic.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 08:51:06 PM
Question!

Why is Prayer Man's LEFT elbow so much higher in Darnell than in Wiegman?

(https://i.imgur.com/mZeLRl9.gif)

IMHO either it's pulled behind his back in Darnell perhaps because he doing something different with his hands, invisible to us or hidden by his right arm because they are now folded.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 08:54:31 PM
^Actually Alan rather than folded exactly, I think the right hand could be scratching his left forearm, that scene works better for me atm.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 09:03:02 PM
I'm pretty sure the man in black in Couch is not Bill Shelley but Danny Arce!


There's one frame where he almost stops and we see his profile "clearly" and I agree it looks a lot like Arce. does the hairstyle match though?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 09:10:26 PM
Like many conspiracy theories in this case or many observations in the evidence it's important to test them, especially for those who, if found out to be true, will change everything they have come to believe about the case.
In this case the theory is "Prayer Man is Oswald" and dispite all the effort no one can prove it's not but we remain optimistic.

There are however grounds for pessimism(!), and they have gotten even stronger since that photo of Sarah Stanton went up:
------------we have very good knowledge of which TSBD employees were up on those steps at the time of the assassination
------------we have very good knowledge of where on the steps each of these employees was
------------we have very good knowledge of the assassination-time location of all other TSBD employees
------------this offers an all too finite list of candidates for non-LHO Prayer Man
------------one by one the candidates on that list have been crossed off (who's left? Dottie Lovelady??)
------------we seem therefore, by a process of simple elimination, to be stuck with the one TSBD employee whose assassination-time location no one can securely account for...

Have to say, Barry, I find it pretty impressive that, after five years of sometimes fanatical efforts to find a viable non-LHO candidate or to disprove LHO=PrayerMan, the theory is still very much alive and kicking. That may be telling us something.

But-----------let's be good Popperians about this and cry 'May the efforts to falsify the theory continue!' After all, those efforts have stood us* pro-PMers in pretty good stead thus far!


*NOT including you in this, Barry, don't worry!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 09:13:59 PM
IMHO either it's pulled behind his back in Darnell perhaps because he doing something different with his hands, invisible to us or hidden by his right arm because they are now folded.

Yes, all possible! We cannot ignore the change from Wiegman to Darnell.

Could it be that he is leaning over somewhat in Wiegman? As he eats?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 09:18:52 PM
^Actually Alan rather than folded exactly, I think the right hand could be scratching his left forearm, that scene works better for me atm.

Ah, interesting!  Thumb1:

Any suggestions as to what the (possibly) misrecognised 'left forearm' could be?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 09:19:34 PM
There's one frame where he almost stops and we see his profile "clearly" and I agree it looks a lot like Arce. does the hairstyle match though?

Very much so IMO!

(https://i.imgur.com/ibrguyV.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 09:22:26 PM
Looking at the general shape of the person.. the shading of the shirt/or top etc
Could this individual.......


(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6mf9COHlRYg/VpVHV9k1nrI/AAAAAAAAARI/RUiGhFOaGYo/s320/mysterlady2.gif)

Be this same individual at the bottom right with their back to the camera?
The shirt sleeves in the doorway could be somewhat rolled up....?

 (https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mentesana-11.jpg?w=516&h=342)

 
A little liberty in reproducing here.....

(https://2img.net/h/s6.postimg.cc/6kqwg3o31/100_percent_nl.jpg)

Yes it might be, might be anyone, although your guy looks just a little too bulky from the rear, don't think it would convince many for that reason alone, although some think PM "too bulky to be Oswald", could be just what PM is wearing giving them that impression IDK.
As for your second image that's what our main "forensic analyst" here thought was a real image of LHO and a case closer.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 09:37:27 PM
Well said Alan, of course that "remaining optimistic" comment goes both ways for me.
Always had trouble seeing PM on the step rather than the landing but not anymore, that's a big one, even for those very familar with the visuals, just pulling him away from the glass takes time, I just read another one who had him at the front of the landing for ages, again push him back there... I don't get it.
I also think what you pointed out to James about PM's relationship to the wall should be dealt with, hopefully he will recognise it and make that change.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 09:48:15 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/oqjyfo8.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ifDUuQC.jpg)
= PRAYER MAN W/ ARMS CROSSED + SOMETHING BEHIND PRAYERMAN?

Re: "scratching the forearm"
I forgot this one didn't I!? The one I liked.
Without the addition I can easilly see your folded arms proposal.
With it I still think it's part of him, probably his hand or forearm, let me consider it some more.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 10:18:24 PM
Well said Alan, of course that "remaining optimistic" comment goes both ways for me.
Always had trouble seeing PM on the step rather than the landing but not anymore, that's a big one, even for those very familar with the visuals, just pulling him away from the glass takes time, I just read another one who had him at the front of the landing for ages, again push him back there... I don't get it.

Barry, some pro-PMers want him back at the glass in order to explain away the 'left forearm' as a reflection. Doesn't wash.

Quote
I also think what you pointed out to James about PM's relationship to the wall should be dealt with, hopefully he will recognise it and make that change.

All credit to Stancak for highlighting this element!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 10:27:14 PM
We know where Arce was standing when the President passed (thankee, Mr Altgens).

Then:

Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. ARCE. Three
Mr. BALL. Did you look back at the building?
Mr. ARCE. No, I didn't think they came from there. I just looked directly to the railroad tracks and all the people started running up there and I just ran along with them.
Mr. BALL. Did you go up to the railroad tracks?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 10:38:00 PM
The man who climbs up at the road signs------

(https://i.imgur.com/tFjOQhI.gif)

-------is Carl Edward Jones:

(https://i.imgur.com/Am3w3U2.jpg)

Look what happens to his smooth cream-coloured shirt when the film's put through the World-Famous Plaidification Filter!:

(https://i.imgur.com/5PzoAfj.jpg)

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

Which is where this nonsense comes from!:

(https://i.imgur.com/l02E1Qh.jpg)






Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 01, 2018, 10:55:52 PM
No evidence Danny Arce and Pseudo-Lovelady even know each other. Danny just turns to see who's passing him out!

(https://i.imgur.com/tFjOQhI.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 01, 2018, 11:34:01 PM
After reviewing the "stabilzed" footage again Alan, I tend to believe that PM is bringing his hands together then seperating them, like unwrapping something for example, so depending on the frame it could be the hand or forearm with elbow "hidden". Fully prepared to be wrong on all of the above because of the shacky footage.

Also, Arce clearly has a partial DA, interesting enough but even with the filterization considered, I'm pretty happy with "Lovelady" that's a very distinctive and influential pattern.


Alan, in that Darnell gif you posted I found a Sarah Stanton body double, can you find her and do a comparison for us? I thought the body and hairstyle wer similar, can you see anyone that matches that criteria?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 02, 2018, 12:29:34 AM
If this is Lovelady, shouldn't his bald spot be evident?

(https://i.imgur.com/Cvz9YKF.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/JCezBfw.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 02, 2018, 12:30:45 AM
Alan, in that Darnell gif you posted I found a Sarah Stanton body double, can you find her and do a comparison for us? I thought the body and hairstyle wer similar, can you see anyone that matches that criteria?

Can't find her, Barry! Can you give me some idea where in Darnell she is? Thanks Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on July 02, 2018, 01:43:39 AM
I don't have any photos of that shadow pattern - along with a known time -. I would like to have some time verified shadow patterns. They could be of any known date and time as I can use the appropriate sun tables in the model for comparison. The best I was able to find is an Allen photo at Unger's site, taken later that day. It does seem to show a similar pattern on the 5th riser. Check it out.

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=37&pos=60


   I still have not figured how to quote reliably.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 02, 2018, 04:08:14 AM
Blue (behind white) on the steps in Bell:

(https://i.imgur.com/9X7MZI1.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/eU3wLx9.jpg)

Instants later in Bell--------Red as well as blue on the steps:

(https://i.imgur.com/dRVby4W.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8xZYJGs.jpg)

Cf Hughes (and disregarding Toni Glover's blue, of course)!:

(https://i.imgur.com/6ARDlzt.gif)




Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 02, 2018, 04:16:07 AM
To whom belongs this blue??

(https://i.imgur.com/pU9vOxP.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 02, 2018, 01:40:17 PM
From Buell Wesley Frazier's Warren Commission testimony!

Mr. BALL - When you stood out on the front looking at the parade, where was Shelley standing and where was Lovelady standing with reference to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, see, I was standing, like I say, one step down from the top, and Mr. Shelley was standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there. See, he was standing right over there, and then Billy was a couple of steps down from me over toward more the wall also.

Note that Ball's question refers specifically to the time when people were 'looking at the parade' (and not, say, 'hearing the shots').

Frazier's curious placing of Shelley & Lovelady has always puzzled me. But! I now believe Hughes may be confirming it:

(https://i.imgur.com/6ARDlzt.gif)

-Red Shirt Man: standing just over Carl Edward Jones
-Bill Shelley: directly behind Red Shirt Man, close to what will be the Prayer Man position (his head just visible over Red Shirt Man's)
-Billy Lovelady: slightly east of Shelley and down a couple of steps, in blue jacket over red plaid shirt.

(https://i.imgur.com/f5Kr0Gv.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/lPdOUqG.jpg)

By the time of Altgens/early-Wiegman,
------------Shelley has stepped backwards onto landing and moved east (to keep the limo in view)
------------Lovelady has gone up a step and moved a little east (same reason!)
------------Red Shirt Man has gone up to the Prayer Man position.


NB! Those wishing to dismiss out of hand the notion of Lovelady wearing a jacket over his plaid shirt STILL need to come up with an alternative (and logical!) explanation for the dark border running down Lovelady's side in Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/v4YOzdY.jpg)

This dark border is still the elephant in the doorway, folks!




Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 02, 2018, 07:01:39 PM
I have to conclude that I agree with MrDuncanMacRae's comment;

"Proof that Prayer Person is not Oswald is NOT recent".


"Everyone in the area concerned, known, unknown, and disputed, have been known NOT to have been Oswald for the past 55 years."

However, for at least 5 years, as I recall, there has been, and continues to be, an ongoing effort to promote the LeeHarveyOswald is PrayerPersonImageTheory, and referring to said image as PrayerMan.
And, said theory, at least to me, is loaded with false, and beyond fact, assertions, even to the degree of inserting images, not previously seen, into film/photograph scenes, and/or scene reproduction(s).
That said, although I do not, and should not, claim as a discovery myself, the recent information provided, that I did encourage investigating as well as offering some minor assistance in securing, serves as provable evidence for a positive identification of PrayerPersonImage, aka PrayerWoman.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 02, 2018, 10:16:26 PM
Proof that Prayer Person is not Oswald is NOT recent, Brian.

Everyone in the area concerned, known,unknown and disputed, have been known NOT to have been Oswald for the past 55 years.

And yet there Prayer Person stands-------with no credible candidate other than LHO still standing!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 02, 2018, 10:45:24 PM
Oh dear. The LNers think the Prayer Man debate is just another version of the Altgens Doorwayman debate. They could not be more wrong!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 02, 2018, 11:04:34 PM
I don't have any photos of that shadow pattern - along with a known time -. I would like to have some time verified shadow patterns. They could be of any known date and time as I can use the appropriate sun tables in the model for comparison. The best I was able to find is an Allen photo at Unger's site, taken later that day. It does seem to show a similar pattern on the 5th riser. Check it out.

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=37&pos=60


   I still have not figured how to quote reliably.

Good for you James, that's perfect, never noticed that before(maybe if looked a bit longer) so, many thanks.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 02, 2018, 11:12:02 PM
If this is Lovelady, shouldn't his bald spot be evident?


I'm not surpised it isn't from that distance Alan but if you compare his profile pic which the FBI took of him wearing "the wrong shirt", the shape of the hair-"cut/style" itself is quite similar.

Also the woman I liked in the last portion of Darnell is big, with dark hair, in a black overcoat and she turns toward the TSBD at the last second.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 02, 2018, 11:17:16 PM
Blue (behind white) on the steps in Bell:
...

Wouldn't mind seeing a "stabillized" clip of that scene before commenting Alan, do you have one?
Oh ok, looks like light blue office shirt and tie from those stills.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 12:02:25 AM
I'm not surpised it isn't from that distance Alan but if you compare his profile pic which the FBI took of him wearing "the wrong shirt", the shape of the hair-"cut/style" itself is quite similar.

(https://i.imgur.com/Cw1kxrq.jpg)

If Couch were just a photo, Barry, then maybe. But none of the frames--------including those showing him walking further ahead where we get more of a back view--------suggest what we know from the Martin film is a pretty darn glaring bald spot!

(https://i.imgur.com/H1SWFDH.jpg)

 The frame in Couch that keeps being used has a white spot, but it's a film artefact! About as indicative as the 'bald spot' on 'Shelley' here  ;)

(https://i.imgur.com/0fyw9Jr.jpg)

Also, if that is Shelley & Lovelady, their heights are all wrong! Lovelady should be the taller.

Quote
Also the woman I liked in the last portion of Darnell is big, with dark hair, in a black overcoat and she turns toward the TSBD at the last second.

This one?

(https://i.imgur.com/7WmqbOE.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 12:10:06 AM
Wouldn't mind seeing a "stabillized" clip of that scene before commenting Alan, do you have one?
Oh ok, looks like light blue office shirt and tie from those stills.

No male office worker (i.e. Williams, Molina) was in that part of the entrance, Barry. Too low. Too far west.

BTW, lot of saturation in this image so health warning re. shade of blue!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/KQGth75.jpg)




Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 03, 2018, 01:13:46 AM
RE: Blue Shirt in Bell,
the tie is a part of the tree I see, at least I think I do.
Looks like the west side of centre alright but near the rail.
There's a gif somewhere of this, now I really need to see it.
I suppose the possibilty does exist that Billy wasn't the only one moving around.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 01:17:14 AM
Thank you, see any similarities with Brian's BYP?

Physique-wise, perhaps, but the hair's just too dark IMO.

Quote
Ok, back to myself.
Not sure if these are Linda Zambinin's findings but we may or may not have a problem(note the ? mark on the 1980 image though), knowing how easy it is for Brian to rush to judgement on this topic(and from time to time apparently Linda does too), how do we trust that he has an image of the correct woman?

(https://i.imgur.com/RwCOvRE.png)
Do you see a resemblence between the BYP and this kid? What about any with the 1980 woman above?
BYP Stanton should be in her forties.
I still wonder if there's been a mistake, so there you go, I've said it.

I think Wanda & Rose's ID of the 1962-4 mother & son photo is pretty secure. What Rose said about Sarah's weight nails it.
The ca.1980 'Sarah?' in Linda's photo looks nothing like the Sarah whom Rose described. Linda was right to be tentative.
Either way-----the wretched Sarah=PM theory needs to be put out of its misery on this thread. It collapsed many, many pages back!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 01:24:57 AM
RE: Blue Shirt in Bell,
the tie is a part of the tree I see, at least I think I do.
Looks like the west side of centre alright but near the rail.

Looks east-of-railing to me (going by relative position of Madie Reese's white).

(https://i.imgur.com/eU3wLx9.jpg)

Either way, if that's a shirt or jacket or upper garment, the person's feet are on one of the lower steps.

Quote
There's a gif somewhere of this, now I really need to see it.
I suppose the possibilty does exist that Billy wasn't the only one moving around.

Or.....  ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 03, 2018, 01:42:35 AM
Proof that Prayer Person is not Oswald is NOT recent, Brian.

Everyone in the area concerned, known, unknown and disputed, have been known NOT to have been Oswald for the past 55 years.

I have no idea what proof you or Brian are referring to Duncan. Maybe I missed something and no one's bothered to point it out to me?

55 years has nothing to do with PM.
When he was first wondered about, apparently a few decades ago(by one only or two researchers/buffs and then forgotten) he wasn't much more than a dark figure in Wiegman, 2013 is when we saw him for the first time, like we can today in Darnell.

You know what went through the investigators minds when they first saw Altgens, "Is that Oswald?" they said, not "that can't be Oswald because he's our victim suspect", for a time they actually considered it. I doubt they'd have made the same effort with PM though.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 01:56:58 AM
Glad you prompted me to hunt down this stabilized Bell gif, Barry.

At the end we see Red Shirt Man making his appearance beside Blue Person with startling clarity!

(https://i.imgur.com/KErrlsf.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 02:03:31 AM
I have no idea what proof you or Brian are referring to Duncan. Maybe I missed something and no one's bothered to point it out to me?

55 years has nothing to do with PM.
When he was first wondered about, apparently a few decades ago(by one only or two researchers/buffs and then forgotten) he wasn't much more than a dark figure in Wiegman, 2013 is when we saw him for the first time, like we can today in Darnell.

You know what went through the investigators minds when they first saw Altgens, "Is that Oswald?" they said, not "that can't be Oswald because he's our victim suspect", for a time they actually considered it. I doubt they'd have made the same effort with PM though.

Well said, Barry!

Lovelady said the FBI were WORRIED by Altgens and VERY relieved when he identified himself as Man In The Door. Go figure  :o
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on July 03, 2018, 08:23:38 AM
It's simple enough to understand, Barry.

I refer to Brians statement, ie, that the recent research, Re: Brian's statement as quoted above, has led to proving that Prayer Person is not Lee Harvey Oswald.

It has been known for a long time that everyone in that specified are is not Lee Harvey Oswald.

No. Beg to differ. It's your opinion, not hat it's been known for a long time, that everyone in that specified  area is not Lee harvey Oswald. The jury is still out about the identity of Prayerman/woman/person.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 03, 2018, 08:52:20 AM
No. Beg to differ. It's your opinion, not hat it's been known for a long time, that everyone in that specified  area is not Lee harvey Oswald. The jury is still out about the identity of Prayerman/woman/person.
(https://funevo.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/636032605880034563-1342206146_perspective-hacks.png)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on July 03, 2018, 09:33:13 AM
(https://funevo.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/636032605880034563-1342206146_perspective-hacks.png)

And who is correct, Duncan?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 03, 2018, 10:09:09 AM
And who is correct, Duncan?

Oswald
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on July 03, 2018, 10:12:15 AM
Oswald

Wow, you now believe it is Oswald in the doorway.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 03, 2018, 10:34:28 AM
Wow, you now believe it is Oswald in the doorway.
(https://zippy.gfycat.com/MealyHastyJoey.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 10:40:26 AM
Wow, you now believe it is Oswald in the doorway.

No good reason why this can't be LHO.
No good reason to think it can be any other TSBD employee, and every good reason to think it can't!

(https://i.imgur.com/0xDd9ak.jpg)

The elimination of Sarah Stanton and the fine probative work of Stancak et al, have moved this into the territory of Beyond Reasonable Doubt IMO. The AnybodyButOswald crew are sounding more and more desperate. They're out of alternative candidates!  :'(

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 10:52:52 AM
The elephant in the room is the preposterous idea that these conspirators would have been so incredibly inept as to let Our Boy Oswald be on the front steps at that time in full view (potentially) of cameras.

Why would that have been incredibly inept of them, James?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 11:07:42 AM
Seems obvious to me.
They are plotting to set him up as a shooter on the 6th floor and it doesn't occur to them they need to control his movement to be damn sure he isn't placed elsewhere by cameras?
What am I missing?

That they may not have been plotting to set him up as a shooter on the 6th floor. Get it now?  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 11:47:56 AM
Comic relief time, part two!

18:27-18:54:

Wanda: Do you think she dyed her hair when she was working?
Rosa: Maybe?
Wanda: Do you think she dyed it darker?
Rosa: No. Maybe she had light hair.
Wanda: Do you ever remember with her hair dark?
Rosa: No.
Brian: But.. it? I can save you all this trouble because, uh, just recently I found an interview with a co-worker, Buell Frazier, who worked at the Book Depository?


Quite a nifty segue there, Brian! Frazier, in the interview you go on to cite, says precisely NOTHING about Sarah's hair. Well played, sir! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
No! Please help?

Let's have another go!
LHO being Prayer Man would challenge the longstanding assumption of many CTs that the conspirators wanted to set him up as the sixth-floor shooter.
The fact that LHO being Prayer Man would challenge a longstanding CT assumption has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Prayer Man is LHO.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 03, 2018, 12:23:13 PM
The elimination of Sarah Stanton and the fine probative work of Stancak et al, have moved this into the territory of Beyond Reasonable Doubt IMO. The AnybodyButOswald crew are sounding more and more desperate. They're out of alternative candidates!  :'(

Sarah Stanton has not been eliminated

What The "It's Gotta Be Oswald At The Entrance At All Costs" crew have to say doesn't count in the real world where facts are King.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 12:38:08 PM
Thx for trying.....

Thx for running away Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 01:06:20 PM
I'm not running at all...I just don't understand.
 I can't make sense of this:
"LHO being Prayer Man would challenge the longstanding assumption of many CTs that the conspirators wanted to set him up as the sixth-floor shooter.
The fact that LHO being Prayer Man would challenge a longstanding CT assumption has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Prayer Man is LHO."

1. You dismiss PrayerMan=LHO as incompatible with the idea that the conspirators wanted to set up LHO as the 6th floor shooter.
2. You assume that the conspirators wanting to set up LHO as the 6th floor shooter is the only possible non-WR scenario.
3. This assumption is manifestly silly.
4. Thus, your dismissal of PrayerMan=LHO fails.
 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on July 03, 2018, 01:35:22 PM
Gee I wonder where I got that from.
Oh. I remember now:
"The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. "
"The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository."

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-1#conclusions

Just shows you shouldn't believe everything you read, James.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 01:46:19 PM
Just shows you shouldn't believe everything you read, James.

James is conflating the assassination conspiracy with the post-assassination cover-up, Ray. Common mistake!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on July 03, 2018, 01:54:40 PM
Give me some indication from primary evidence exactly when the bright idea occurred to the plotters to place Oswald in the 6th floor?
Must have been pretty quick.

Why assume that the conspirators placed Oswald anywhere?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 03, 2018, 01:57:43 PM
Which other JFK researchers still--i.e. post-publication of the photo of Sarah Stanton--believe Sarah Stanton might be Prayer Man, Duncan? Or are you talking Facebook friends? Please tell me you're not talking Facebook friends!
As I said,

After you prove that your statement is true, backed up by facts which prove your truth, I'll post my proof that thousands of people Worldwide believe that Sarah Stanton is Prayer Person.

Should be simple for someone of your caliber.  :-\
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 01:58:24 PM
Give me some indication from primary evidence exactly when the bright idea occurred to the plotters to place Oswald in the 6th floor?
Must have been pretty quick.

You must be pretty-----no, Forum rules don't permit me to finish the thought!

Give us some indication, James, that you understand the difference between the following two concepts:
a) Pre-assassination conspiracy to assassinate JFK
b) Post-assassination cover-up to push the LHO-Acted-Alone narrative.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 01:59:12 PM
As I said,

After you prove that your statement is true, backed up by facts which prove your truth, I'll post my proof that thousands of people Worldwide believe that Sarah Stanton is Prayer Person.

Should be simple for someone of your caliber.  :-\

So you are talking Facebook friends? Who became friends when exactly?
Jesus wept!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 03, 2018, 02:02:40 PM
So you are talking Facebook friends? Who became friends when exactly?
Jesus wept!
You must have missed my last post, failed to understand the meaning of the content of it, or are posting using an alias.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/Z4alZl8V1cmHK/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 02:15:47 PM
You must have missed my last two posts, failed to understand their meanings of the content of them, or are posting using an alias.

So you can't. You, Brian and Larry are the only ones still steering the Good Ship Sarah. Good luck with that!

(https://i.imgur.com/9wagui5.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 02:17:09 PM
You dodged my question....
Threats of ad hom are showing up already?
Why?
To cover the dodge?

 ::)

How can I answer a question-begging question, James?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 03, 2018, 02:47:23 PM
So you can't. You, Brian and Larry are the only ones still steering the Good Ship Sarah. Good luck with that!

Thank goodness you've bailed out, I win
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/p9sjh1vbfdh7yz2dgm9v.gif)



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 02:50:24 PM
3 more dodged questions.....anyway I understand your reluctance.
Will leave you guys to it.
While mildly interesting in terms of trivia I am not much interested.

We've got Prayer Man.

You've got--------

(https://i.imgur.com/Sl1lcmh.jpg)

Bye!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 02:53:12 PM
Thank goodness you've bailed out, I win
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/p9sjh1vbfdh7yz2dgm9v.gif)

Sorry I touched a raw nerve, Duncan!
Now might be a good time to add a question mark at the end of the thread title  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 03, 2018, 04:09:45 PM
Sorry I touched a raw nerve, Duncan!
Now might be a good time to add a question mark at the end of the thread title  Thumb1:
Thumb1: Nothing you say will change the fact that you bailed out after being unable to answer my request to prove your statement.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6ZtihIv0pJqdp3H2/200.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 05:27:57 PM
If MrAlanFord's comments are not "insulting another Forum member(s)", I have to wonder, as I wander, WHAT IS(?)

Wasn't insulting you personally, Mr Trotter, just your contributions to the discussion---which are thin to the point of utter vacuity.
You, on the other hand, are, I have no doubt, a fine and worthwhile human being!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 05:34:04 PM
Back to Lovelady in Wiegman!

What is this we are seeing in Altgens?

(https://i.imgur.com/m6lQKWZ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/mvSO11y.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 03, 2018, 05:51:35 PM
MrDuncanMacRae:

After turning discussions into battles elsewhere, with "aid and comfort", the PrayerManImage/LeeHarveyOswald theory promoters were able to shut down debate, by causing the "disputes" to be severely limited, if at all. And, on one Forum, even to the process of moving "some posted comments" to a "Pit", which is not accessible unless "signed-on", which eliminates non-members, as well as "banned posters". Also, on said forum, there appears to be a "limited timing" applied to some "members" which of course eliminates full access to posting, as after "timed-out", any access is denied.
Surely, MrMacRae, you are aware, so just a 'reminder'.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 03, 2018, 06:28:31 PM
Thank you, Ray! More shameless moderator-baiting from Brian. Not surprising no other forum will have him. Duncan has the patient of a saint  Thumb1:

Friends, in the interests of peace, fraternity and all-round fellowship, I'm going to take a lil 24-hour break from posting to let Brian and Larry cool off. Attacking PM=LHO, and getting annihilated point for point, must be exhausting. Hopefully they will have moved on to Pauline Sanders (a.k.a. Great White Saviour #2) by then!  Thumb1:

Meanwhile, what are we seeing here?

(https://i.imgur.com/m6lQKWZ.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 04, 2018, 01:42:29 AM
Back to Lovelady in Wiegman!

What is this we are seeing in Altgens?


Would it actually be part of a step?
Thought it might be part of someone in the street at first, not sure.

Also Alan that Bell clip is confusing, could be a blue shirt or white/off white, might be on the east side of the rail, can't tell, can't recognise anyone, even Resse or Dean, there might be a slightly better gif out there and I'll keep an eye out.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 04, 2018, 01:44:40 AM
Nevermind , too high to be a step, could be behind Shelley though.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 04, 2018, 03:35:39 AM
Everyone at sometime in their life as had that feeling of being set up, perhaps it was just for a practical joke if your lucky but we know that feeling and don't forget it. Oswald was no chump, what would he have done if he had that feeling on this day? Go along with it and then when he had the chance at the last minute, give 'em the slip? Why not?
The only way to avoid this is to physically stop him, what happens then?  Well think about it and explain how that is even an option?
No chump, no way, never pictured him like that, not once.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 04, 2018, 05:41:03 AM
Wasn't insulting you personally, Mr Trotter, just your contributions to the discussion---which are thin to the point of utter vacuity.
You, on the other hand, are, I have no doubt, a fine and worthwhile human being!  Thumb1:

"VACUITY"-NOUN-1)lack of thought or intelligence;empty headedness. 2)empty space;emptiness.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 04, 2018, 07:03:59 AM
So you can't. You, Brian and Larry are the only ones still steering the Good Ship Sarah. Good luck with that!

(https://i.imgur.com/9wagui5.jpg)

 ::)No luck needed, as sufficient provable evidence places SarahDeanStanton on the TSBD Bldg entrance landing, just before, at, and just after 12:30pm CST, 11/22/'63, and recorded statement information, from family members, indicative of her large size, but her height at 5'4"-5'6" maximum, has been made.
But, talk about luck, this posted picture from a film of the entrance portal at about 12:31pm CST offers considerable evidence that the only PersonImage seen on the landing just as and/or just seconds after the shooting assassination of JFK Sr, and wounding of JBC Jr, that fits said description, is PrayerPersonImage.

Talk about indicative information being available to establish additional provable evidence that PrayerPersonImage is aka PrayerWomanImage, and said image represents MsSarahDeanStaton.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 04, 2018, 07:43:33 AM
(https://funevo.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/636032605880034563-1342206146_perspective-hacks.png)

No other TSBD entrance stairs/landing occupant confirmed or indicated the presence of LeeHarveyOswald at said time.
No eyewitness confirmed or indicated the presence of LeeHarveyOswald on the entrance landing/stairs at said time.
Neither Bldg Superintendent RoyTruly, or DPD Officer MarrionBaker confirmed or indicated seeing LeeHarveyOswald on the entrance landing/stairs at said time as they had entered the bldg through said entrance.
But, after about 50 years/half a century, someone decided that an otherwise unidentified PersonImage filmed from a moving hand-held camera, from a moving motorcade vehicle some cars behind the PresidentialLimousine, as seen in shadow, in a corner area, must be LeeHarveyOswald, without any confirmation evidence.
So, a History Changing Story was born, never mind contradictory provable evidence.
On the other hand, pictured is a great example of the value of DayLightSavingsTime.


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 04, 2018, 08:12:06 AM
No good reason why this can't be LHO.
No good reason to think it can be any other TSBD employee, and every good reason to think it can't!

(https://i.imgur.com/0xDd9ak.jpg)

The elimination of Sarah Stanton and the fine probative work of Stancak et al, have moved this into the territory of Beyond Reasonable Doubt IMO. The AnybodyButOswald crew are sounding more and more desperate. They're out of alternative candidates!  :'(

Bumped for image preservation to pursue detection of any PersonImage(s), beyond those filmed/pictured, being "inserted into the scene".
However, any  BS: assertions beyond fact need to  Walk:.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 04, 2018, 06:14:45 PM
Neither Bldg Superintendent RoyTruly, or DPD Officer MarrionBaker confirmed or indicated seeing LeeHarveyOswald on the entrance landing/stairs at said time as they had entered the bldg through said entrance.

Should come as no surprice after having kooked up the lunchroom deal...
Not being any sort of EnglishLanguageMajor, I am curious as to what a 'surprice' is(?)
I also would like to be able to correctly understand what is meant by the statement, 'having kooked up the lunchroom deal...'(?)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 04, 2018, 06:42:55 PM
Apologies if these have already been posted.....


(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-woman2.gif?w=399&h=602)

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/martin-and-hughes-synch-gif.gif?w=911&h=343)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 04, 2018, 08:16:39 PM
Apologies if these have already been posted.....


(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-woman2.gif?w=399&h=602)

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/martin-and-hughes-synch-gif.gif?w=911&h=343)

Jerry:
The images from a HughesFilm and a MartinFilm have been posted, and discussed, and actually I started a thread discussion on another forum about a year and a half ago, where I referred to said person as ScarfLady, which, is actually only an image, that I now recognize/refer to as ScarfLadyImage. However, I absolutely make NO CLAIM OF DISCOVERY, although to me a discovered subject identity question.
I continue to see/observe what to me are similarities between PrayerPersonImage and ScarfLadyImage, although I do acknowledge that evidence has been presented that indicate the images represent different persons. But, I continue to seek clarification, which includes a positive identity of the person represented by ScarfLadyImage.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 04, 2018, 10:08:01 PM
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/martin-and-hughes-synch-gif.gif?w=911&h=343)


This footage is from about 12.50pm.

Therefore! That lady can't be Pauline Sanders  :(

(https://i.imgur.com/E2rYViP.jpg)

Nor can she be Sarah Stanton, who is admittedly the SPITTING IMAGE OF HER (look at that gray hair-----the match is uncanny!). Heartbreakingly, we know that Sarah reentered the building very shortly after the assassination and didn't leave again until about 14.20  :( :(

So who could she be??

Logic tells us she's probably either Vida Lee Whatley or Virginia H. Barnum.

But logic is boring! Let's pull out all the stops to secure an identification of this random woman who can't possibly be Prayer Person! Go team  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 04, 2018, 10:18:13 PM
A smarter more capable researcher would realize that anyone who believes in the two Oswalds theory is FxxxxD In The Head.

True dat Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 04, 2018, 10:25:07 PM
Nevermind , too high to be a step, could be behind Shelley though.

Ah, never thought of that! Very possible------thank you Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/m6lQKWZ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/mvSO11y.jpg)

If you're right, then the white may well be a piece of clothing (Stancak interprets 'Lovelady's left ear' as part of Sarah's head/face... I think he's right about it not being Lovelady's ear----too big!)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 04, 2018, 10:40:04 PM
The elephant in the room is the preposterous idea that these conspirators would have been so incredibly inept as to let Our Boy Oswald be on the front steps at that time in full view (potentially) of cameras.

And, in full view of multiple stairs/landing occupants, most of which would have quite easily recognized him as an employee at the TSBD Bldg. Also, there were hundreds of motorcade watchers nearby, many of which were likely to recall seeing him there at the time, after he became a LoneGunmanAssassin suspect.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 04, 2018, 11:03:28 PM
I'll have to get back to you with your latest response Brian, I'm trying to keep things simple and your explainations confuse me, just so I'm following you correctly  I shan't rush  but it should come as no suprise when/if I agree with you from time to time.
Real evidence I don't deny, never, in this case I see no point, God yes at times, umm, give me another one, oh yeah no I can't say it.

Btw that kind of talk is what we are supposed to reject, not because someone says so but because it's utterly disespectful to the case, the subject matter, the flimsy evidence that we are arguing over, all you do is get people's backs up, luckily enough I've learnt to ignore it mostly, it just tells me even more that you have next to no case but you could still be right that's it's not LHO.

Let me talk on that briefly, what if it was? What gonna happen? He still guilty to them, still shot a cop, probably suplied a rifle to kill JFK, may have even helped the other/s escape by disracting Baker. This case is endless. He's still guilty of something. That's the cop mentality. Ok so we were wrong about this but we know he done something, sometime... or would have.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 04, 2018, 11:32:13 PM
Perspective in Altgens is SO deceptive, as this excellent guide shows!

(https://i.imgur.com/tMJ1WHE.jpg)

Worth bearing this in mind when considering 'Lovelady's left arm'!

(https://i.imgur.com/mvSO11y.jpg)

It IS an arm, but it belongs not to Lovelady but to a spectator in the street who has their hand raised!

Again, for ILLUSTRATIVE purposes:

(https://i.imgur.com/8UNAACD.jpg)

Why does this matter? Because 'Lovelady's left arm' in Altgens is----------IRONICALLY-----------what makes everyone think they're seeing the signature plaid of his red shirt!

------------------Lovelady IS wearing his red plaid shirt
------------------BUT! It's more complicated than that!

(https://i.imgur.com/Mf4liB5.jpg)



 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 04, 2018, 11:42:49 PM
What gonna happen? He still guilty to them, still shot a cop, probably suplied a rifle to kill JFK, may have even helped the other/s escape by disracting Baker. This case is endless. He's still guilty of something. That's the cop mentality. Ok so we were wrong about this but we know he done something, sometime... or would have.

Supplied the rifle to kill JFK: if LHO is Prayer Man (and who else, at this stage, could he be?), then this was probably the plan of the conspirators. No need to set LHO up as the 6th floor shooter. The involvement of a Castro-loving Marxist was enough.

Of course, it's possible LHO was knowingly involved in something that day and played the role of a facilitator.

Prayer Man's body language up on those steps in Darnell is ambiguous. Shock? Insoucience? Who's to say!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 05, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Apologies if these have already been posted.....


(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-woman2.gif?w=399&h=602)


Brain, this image that Jerry reposted
I can see a purse if I want to, or at least the shape of one(was that your point Jerry?), I don't deny the shape is there or that I see it but I can easilly deny it's credibilty because that's all it is for now just a shape, could be a shadow and there's ample reason to believe you're reading too much into it.
Find a better image where we see it's clearly a purse and I'm on it, or a chubby arm. or long hair, a dress... my god, you see a dress, oh because of the "buttons", ahh ha. sure that's all very credible, to you... not to me. Clearly I cannot help you, I'm only an amatuer, the only expert I know is Craig Lamson and I don't even know him but he still logs on here perhaps you can PM him for some sound advice, Would love to know what he feels about the Lovelady shadow issue.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 05, 2018, 12:21:24 AM
Suggestion for Lovelady 'shadow' in Wiegman!

(https://i.imgur.com/Mf4liB5.jpg)

Something along the lines of this kind of deal?

(https://i.imgur.com/ui4p14l.jpg)



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 05, 2018, 12:36:11 AM
Supplied the rifle to kill JFK: if LHO is Prayer Man (and who else, at this stage, could he be?), then this was probably the plan of the conspirators. No need to set LHO up as the 6th floor shooter. The involvement of a Castro-loving Marxist was enough.

Of course, it's possible LHO was knowingly involved in something that day and played the role of a facilitator.

Prayer Man's body language up on those steps in Darnell is ambiguous. Shock? Insoucience? Who's to say!

I'm not sure that either he or Frazier has learnt what's happened yet but that would suggest a real relaxed state of mind especially on his part.
Q: "Were you in the bulding when you heard about the shooting?" A: "Naturally if I work in that building", so went back inside, upstairs and then learnt about it, as others did :)
Also, Here's Fritz in JFKII after just finding out "He's been to Russia... and lived there?!"

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 05, 2018, 12:46:38 AM
Brian, I mentoned this a couple times and I don't remember you explaining it.
Let's say she was on the step with both feet, who? Anyone, on any step, She then puts one foot up.
Your telling us you could recognise a change in height, not just in Darnell or Wiegman but in any film or even if she was in the same room? Go put one leg up yourself before you expain it to me(no pun intended).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 05, 2018, 12:55:18 AM
I'm not sure that either he or Frazier has learnt what's happened yet but that would suggest a real relaxed state of mind especially on his part.
Q: "Were you in the bulding when you heard about the shooting?" A: "Naturally if I work in that building", so went back inside, upstairs and then learnt about it, as others did :)
Also, Here's Fritz in JFKII after just finding out "He's been to Russia... and lived there?!"


Or?????

Realising a shooting has taken place, he goes back into the vestibule and enters the small storage room at building's front. He brought a rifle to work to sell to someone and left it in the storage room until after work. Now he's thinking, 'No... It couldn't be.' But yes, it could: the rifle's gone. He is just exiting the storage room, his mind spinning, when a motorcycle officer comes running into the vestibule and asks him 'Do you work here?' (Officer wants to be shown the way up to the roof.) Before LHO has time to answer, R.S.Truly steps up and says to the officer 'I am the building manager. Follow me.' Etc.

In custody, LHO doesn't want to admit to ownership of the rifle, so he gives Fritz the bare facts (front entrance, vestibule, officer) but leaves out the storage room part. Perhaps he is so anxious to hide the fact that he went back inside so as to check the storage room that he even hides the fact that he saw JFK pass and was on the front steps for the shooting. So he tells Fritz he was just about to reach the front door to see what had happened outside when the officer came in.

It doesn't even occur to him that anyone might think he fired the actual shots..


Far fetched?

1. Harry D. Holmes testimony:

Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.
Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?
Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.
Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.


2. This:


(https://i.imgur.com/Awb4Mfs.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 05, 2018, 01:13:18 AM
In regards to my post #1119

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,562.msg21555.html#msg21555

I found those clips posted on another link by Duncan MacRae.
I believe this is Prayer Woman.
I used to think it might be Oswald.

However I posted a frame that I believe is Oswald but there was no response to it.
...the guy in the bottom right with his back to the camera-
 


 (https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/mentesana-1.jpg?w=487&h=361)
 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 05, 2018, 01:17:25 AM
In regards to my post #1119

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,562.msg21555.html#msg21555

I found those clips posted on another link by Duncan MacRae.
I believe this is Prayer Woman.
I used to think it might be Oswald.

Which of the female TSBD employees known to have been on the front steps at the time of the assassination do you believe this might be? Unless you or someone else can come up with a viable name, she's not 'Prayer Woman'.

(Hint: she's not 'Prayer Woman'!)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 05, 2018, 01:23:58 AM

It IS an arm, but it belongs not to Lovelady but to a spectator in the street who has their hand raised!

Why does this matter? Because 'Lovelady's left arm' in Altgens is----------IRONICALLY-----------what makes everyone think they're seeing the signature plaid of his red shirt!

------------------Lovelady IS wearing his red plaid shirt
------------------BUT! It's more complicated than that!


I think we would actually see the hand on the end of that arm Alan, can you "manipulate" it a bit?
I get your point about the jacket and just over one shoulder, in a way it fits nicely but again no sign of it anywhere else and I'll say it again, I'm confident it's not shadow, that's why it works as an option for me but I'm sceptica about itl.

I noticed elsewhere in the past people having real problems with Lovelady's "arm" and I must have found it interesting at the time becasue I read quite a bit of it.
 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 05, 2018, 01:33:22 AM


However I posted a frame that I believe is Oswald but there was no response to it.
...the guy in the bottom right with his back to the camera-
 


 (https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/mentesana-1.jpg?w=487&h=361)

I responded Jerry, go check me out.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 05, 2018, 01:37:32 AM
I think we would actually see the hand on the end of that arm Alan, can you "manipulate" it a bit?

Here's the hand, Barry. It belongs to a black spectator.

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

Quote
I noticed elsewhere in the past people having real problems with Lovelady's "arm" and I must have found it interesting at the time becasue I read quite a bit of it.

Lovelady's 'arm' was one of the reasons the photo alteration mania over Altgens gripped so many people. It really does look wrong----in fact it's an impossible arm-----but this has NOTHING to do with photo alteration! Just a case of misinterpretation of image.


Re. Lovelady's posited half-worn Jacket: if this is what Wiegman is showing us, then once Lovelady leaves the steps (assuming that's what he does), he will simply start carrying the jacket instead of having it hung from his his shoulder!

BY THE SAME TOKEN (and I trust you hear the pain in my voice as I type these words!), I must reopen the possibility that this is Lovelady---------but with the jacket held in his left hand:

(https://i.imgur.com/6ARDlzt.gif)

If so, then he must have slung it over his shoulder as he went higher up the steps and east to keep JFK & Jackie in view.  Thumb1:



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 05, 2018, 01:59:38 AM
I responded Jerry, go check me out.

The clip shows it better...
It comes starting at 6:25 toward the end...
That shirt looks like CE151... the shirt Oswald was wearing...opened in the front makes him look bulky ..the back of the head...& the walk can't be just anybody.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 05, 2018, 02:08:11 AM
Here's the hand, Barry. It belongs to a black spectator.
...

Wasn't expecting that.
Might be some slight relief here Alan but not only do I see it but now I'll never unsee it and anyone that sees a purse or... well you name it, will see it.
Who do you think they might be waving at though, LBJ's group?


You think it's impossible because it goes down and "into"(how comes his name won't stick) Edwards(?)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 05, 2018, 02:18:40 AM
Which of the female TSBD employees known to have been on the front steps at the time of the assassination do you believe this might be? Unless you or someone else can come up with a viable name, she's not 'Prayer Woman'.

It's just my call.
How could I know someone's name?
The way this old lady is clutching her purse [with both hands] it looks like the prayer person.
The dress looks like the same shade.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 05, 2018, 02:20:04 AM
The clip shows it better...
It comes starting at 6:25 toward the end...
That shirt looks like CE151... the shirt Oswald was wearing...opened in the front makes him look bulky ..the back of the head...& the walk can't be just anybody.

Yes by anyone I meant PM Jerry but others would dissagree and regarding your man, it does make him look bulkier than he probably is, no argument there.
On that footage, that's late, look at the crowd and vehicles, legend and "evidence" would put LHO(correct me if I'm wrong), closing in on the theatre. That's after 2PM easy and someone like Denis, Robin or you reading this now, might qualify or question this for us.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 05, 2018, 01:35:54 PM
Wasn't expecting that.
Might be some slight relief here Alan but not only do I see it but now I'll never unsee it and anyone that sees a purse or... well you name it, will see it.
Who do you think they might be waving at though, LBJ's group?

Presumably!

Quote
You think it's impossible because it goes down and "into"(how comes his name won't stick) Edwards(?)

The shape of it is ridiculous for Lovelady's arm-------------gets wider as it goes down.
And yes, the crazy spatial relation with Carl Edward Jones is another giveaway!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 05, 2018, 01:52:30 PM
It's just my call.
How could I know someone's name?
The way this old lady is clutching her purse [with both hands] it looks like the prayer person.
The dress looks like the same shade.

OK, Jerry, but it's not enough just to say 'I see a resemblance' (and to ignore points of NON-resemblance). If this is 'Prayer Woman' then she must be an employee of the Depository who was alone on the west side of the steps at the time of the assassination and then OUTSIDE the building at around 12.50pm.

Now! We know which female employees were on the steps-------the list is not very long! Go down that list and you will find yourself having to cross name after name off it. So, for example, she CANNOT be Pauline Sanders, who was inside the building at 12.50pm. She CANNOT be Sarah Stanton for the same reason. That's before we even get to physical features, witness statements or evidence from the photographic record.

Pretty soon, you will find yourself looking at a list comprising nothing but crossed out candidates!

Apply this method to the Prayer Man issue by going through every single Depository employee (male and female) at work that day, and you will find that only one viable candidate is left: LHO. People have spent five years trying to find Anybody But Oswald-----from Bill Shelley (!) to Sarah Stanton (!)-----but they have failed miserably!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 05, 2018, 02:31:15 PM
Friends! It's time to lay this kooky Prayer Man nonsense to rest for once and for all. Here's a list of all the TSBD employees as of 22 Nov 1963. I've left off Lee H. Oswald as he's OBVIOUSLY not Prayer Man! Together, let's find the REAL Prayer Man  Thumb1:

Adams, Victoria Elizabeth
Aiken, Haddon Spurgeon 
Arce, Danny Garcia
Arnold, Carolyn (R.E.)
Barnum, Virginia H.
Berry, Jane
Burns, Doris Fay
Calvery, Gloria
Campbell, Ochus Virgil
Case, Edna
Cason, Jack Charles
Caster, Warren
Clay, Billie P. (Mrs Herman N.)
Davis, Avery (Mrs Charles Thomas Davis)
Davis, Mrs. Joseph A. (Vickie)
Dickerson, Mary Sue
Dorman, Elsie
Dougherty, Jack Edwin
Dragoo, Betty Jean
Elerson, Sandra Sue (Mrs Ronald G.)
Foster, Betty Alice
Frazier, Buell Wesley
Garner, Dorothy Ann
Givens, Charles Douglas
Hendrix, Georgia Ruth
Hicks, Karan (Mrs James Daniel)
Hine, Geneva L.
Holt, Gloria Jeannie
Hopson, Yola D.
Hughes, Carol
Jacob, Stella
Jarman, James Earl "Junior"
Johnson, Judy Marie
Jones, Carl Edward
Jones, Spaulden Earnest
Junker, Herbert L.
Kaiser, Frankie 
Kounas, Dolores Arlene
Lawrence, Patricia Ann
Lewis, Roy Edward
Lovelady, Billy Nolan
Lovelady, Dottie
McCulley, Judith Louise
Molina, Joe R.
Nelson, Ruth Smith
Nelson, Sharon
Norman, Harold Dean
Palmer, Helen L.
Parker, Roberta
Piper, Eddie
Rachley, Virgie (Mrs Donald Baker)
Reed, Carol
Reed, Martha
Reese, Madie Belle
Reid, Mrs. Robert A.
Richey, Bonnie
Sanders, Pauline
Shelley, William H.
Shields, Edward
Smith, Gordon
Springer, Pearl
Stansbery, Joyce Maurine
Stanton, Sarah D.
Styles, Sandra K.
Thornton, Betty Jean
Truly, Roy Sansom
Viles, Lloyd R.
West, Troy Eugene
Westbrook, Karen
Wester, Franklin Emmett
Whatley, Vida Lee
Whitaker, Lucy (Lupe)
Williams, Bonnie Ray
Williams, Mary Lee
Williams, Otis Neville
Wilson, Steven F.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 05, 2018, 03:56:08 PM
Folded arms, say I!

(https://i.imgur.com/4plorzL.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 05, 2018, 03:58:53 PM
Something behind Prayer Man, say I!

(https://i.imgur.com/D6miLzu.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 05, 2018, 08:04:29 PM
Friends, according to Andrej Stancak's calculations based in part on Frazier's height in Darnell, Prayer Man is either 5'2" (if on landing) or 5'9" (if down one step).

Looks like he's right!  Thumb1:

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

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

(https://i.imgur.com/YZ9wW0q.jpg)


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 05, 2018, 10:29:41 PM
How to say nothing in 135 words!  Thumb1:

I make a solid effort to only post truthful, factual, accurate information/observations, that admittedly includes conclusions. But, said conclusions are evidence based.
And, I retain my conviction that 'evidence' expressed to indicate known eyewitnesses, now deceased, to be liars, fails the validity test.
I also retain my conviction to not say anything on this forum that I would not say in public, and face to face.
By the way, Mr, uh, uh, Ford, is there some confusion about your expressed name? The reply you commented upon is in reference to a post/reply expressed by another member, by the way. However, your comment appears aimed at me personally, and not relative to the discussion/issue involved.
Now, as it is a violation to call 'any member' a 'troll', and I do not intend to do so, but reading your posted comment causes me to wonder whether or not such comment would possibly qualify as trolling?
Perhaps a definition is available?


And, of course, it will be no surprise to see another EdselDodge by Ford approaching...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 05, 2018, 10:58:52 PM

I make a solid effort to only post truthful, factual, accurate information/observations, that admittedly includes conclusions. But, said conclusions are evidence based.

Nope, all you ever post are pretentious, sententious nothing burgers. You clearly have nothing substantive to contribute to the discussion.
BUT...
----------your ability to use a range of font colors, and to activate the italics button, is highly impressive!
----------I am sure that you, as a person, have many fine qualities! Thumb1:

#Reply #762!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 06, 2018, 12:51:33 AM
If Lovelady's was on the landing in Weigman it's over for me, or it would be because dispite claims of this as fact, there is no proof, or even the slightest evidence he was up that far when you look closely.

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/martin-and-hughes-synch-gif.gif?w=911&h=343)


Watch the cop and the lady step up to the landing.
He has one foot on it already to begin with, when he puts his other up there, boom, he's hit, hard.
Now watch her. Clearly the shorter person, she steps up and for a second there's nothing, then, as she appears to lean slightly into it she's hit.

So, if your around 5.5'-5.6'(my estimate) and were stood on the landing and leaned toward the street just a touch you could easilly avoid the lintle's shadow(if your taller you'd lean a bit more, you get the idea).
Now go look at Lovelady in Weigman, do you see him leaning forward, at all? Look at the best frames available in our image galleries, the last pages of the Weigman gallery, is he devoid of all shadow on his head? Do you see any sign of him in the Weigman frames leaning toward the street?
Then show me.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 06, 2018, 01:04:17 AM
OK but I just thought this guy is also about the same height and no I don't know when the clip was shot but say it was about 12:45...who can say?
As far as Oswald's movements after he left the building...the official story is really silly.
Probably really really silly is some almost 1200 posts trying to determine the identity of someone that is basically just a blob on film.

Thanks for folding, Jerry, & good luck with your crucial, potentially case-breaking identification of a man whose back is to the camera! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 06, 2018, 01:12:44 AM
If Lovelady's was on the landing in Weigman it's over for me, or it would be because dispite claims of this as fact, there is no proof, or even the slightest evidence he was up that far when you look closely.

Watch the cop and the lady step up to the landing.
He has one foot on it already to begin with, when he puts his other up there, boom, he's hit, hard.
Now watch her. Clearly the shorter person, she steps up and for a second there's nothing, then, as she appears to lean slightly into it she's hit.

So, if your around 5.5'-5.6'(my estimate) and were stood on the landing and leaned toward the street just a touch you could easilly avoid the lintle's shadow(if your taller you'd lean a bit more, you get the idea).
Now go look at Lovelady in Weigman, do you see him leaning forward, at all? Look at the best frames available in our image galleries, the last pages of the Weigman gallery, is he devoid of all shadow on his head? Do you see any sign of him in the Weigman frames leaning toward the street?
Then show me.

Spot on, Barry Thumb1:

Apart from the reason you mention, Lovelady's height relative to the Frazier/Prayer Man we see in Darnell puts him one step down because we know his height:

(https://i.imgur.com/UB3g36R.jpg)



Those now saying that Prayer Man cannot be one step down know not what they say. In insisting that Lovelady is on the landing, they are leaving themselves checkmated!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 06, 2018, 01:27:39 AM
OK but I just thought this guy is also about the same height and no I don't know when the clip was shot but say it was about 12:45...who can say?
As far as Oswald's movements after he left the building...the official story is really silly.
Probably really really silly is some almost 1200 posts trying to determine the identity of someone that is basically just a blob on film.

13:45PM perhaps but I doubt it's even 15m earlier, IMHO of course and based on all the other films and photos from those first hours(most of which admittedly are facing the bulding and not the crowd) but there are some. If you find out at which time the fire truck was called for and/or arrived, you could pin it down some, also that camerman who took that footage, I know his name when I see it (french sounding) if he was at Parkland for example, say at 1PM, then that's another clue.
Your man isn't a bad candidate despite the time difference, the more sets of eyes the better.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 06, 2018, 01:36:10 AM
Alan, do you think that Frazier is being hit by shadow only from above in Darnell or also from the west wall?
See anything significant?
Apologies if you've already said so.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on July 06, 2018, 01:46:21 AM
I'm pretty sure the man in black in Couch is not Bill Shelley but Danny Arce!

(https://i.imgur.com/ztu0WTn.gif)
Alan,
That looks like a great call, as the determined heights of Shelley and Arce will show.

Using my 3D model I measured the apparent heights for Arce, Williams, Det Brown and Shelley against a perp-like-walk photo, with Lovelady popping in next to Shelley for the group photo (I don't know the photographer).
 (https://i.imgur.com/HP5CQYa.gif)
Results for their heights are as follows:

Arce      5'11?
Williams   6' 2.5?
Det Brown   5' 9?
Lovelady   5' 8.5? (from other sources)
Shelley   5'6?

The next exhibit compares the alleged Shelly against Arce, as seen a Mal Couch frame. To make these renderings I had to assume a curb  height of 9?. I also added a Lovelady stand-in, who's height does fit nicely with the alleged Lovelady. The two men in Couch could include Billy Lovelady, but not Bill Shelley. Danny Arce is a good fit as the taller man.

(https://i.imgur.com/txXjWub.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 06, 2018, 02:34:21 AM
Alan,
That looks like a great call, as the determined heights of Shelley and Arce will show.
...

I become more comfortable with it being Arce each time I see it.
Okay, what if the reason our guy slowed down was because he wanted to look at what he was walking into, slows down and goes up on his toes?
Can you picture him doing that and would it make any difference to his height,(to me it seems to be in that area where he stops, he grows)?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 06, 2018, 01:50:09 PM
Alan, do you think that Frazier is being hit by shadow only from above in Darnell or also from the west wall?
See anything significant?
Apologies if you've already said so.

Only from above, Barry---------------his body being turned southwest
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 06, 2018, 02:04:11 PM
Alan,
That looks like a great call, as the determined heights of Shelley and Arce will show.

Using my 3D model I measured the apparent heights for Arce, Williams, Det Brown and Shelley against a perp-like-walk photo, with Lovelady popping in next to Shelley for the group photo (I don't know the photographer).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z6Pj2eBA5Oh6rhYaw_8uJKD2Y5pfv01-/view?usp=sharing


Results for their heights are as follows:

Arce      5'11?
Williams   6' 2.5?
Det Brown   5' 9?
Lovelady   5' 8.5? (from other sources)
Shelley   5'6?

The next exhibit compares the alleged Shelly against Arce, as seen a Mel Couch frame. To make these renderings I had to assume a curb  height of 9?. I also added a Lovelady stand-in, who's height does fit nicely with the alleged Lovelady. The two men in Couch could include Billy Lovelady, but not Bill Shelley. Danny Arce is a good fit as the taller man.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o8tFDj1oolbQUeuU95adDPFwo036myyu/view?usp=sharing

Great job, James!

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 06, 2018, 02:25:12 PM
Roy Edward Lewis, a short black Depository employee, originally told investigators he was standing alone just inside the front entrance of the building when the shooting happened:

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

Question!

Is it possible Lewis was standing in the short space between the radiator and the glass and that this white X in Darnell is something he is holding?

(https://i.imgur.com/D6miLzu.jpg)





Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 06, 2018, 03:05:13 PM
Great job, James!
Is that a great job done with, or without the subject wearing shoes or boots, or neither?
A tall man or woman could be in reality appear to be shorter than a shorter man or woman, depending on the footwear being worn on the day.
All results are inherantly flawed when trying to make height comparison differences between different individual subjects..
(http://eatsleepdenim.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bob_dylan_denim_1.jpg)(https://cdn-img-3.wanelo.com/p/b5e/c88/75d/f5e29fbfccdd311daf4db7a/x354-q80.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 06, 2018, 03:11:54 PM
Is that a great job done with, or without the subject wearing shoes or boots, or neither?
A tall man or woman could be in reality appear to be shorter than a shorter man or woman, depending on the footwear being worn on the day.
All results are inherantly flawed when trying to make height comparison differences between different individual subjects..
(http://eatsleepdenim.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bob_dylan_denim_1.jpg)(https://cdn-img-3.wanelo.com/p/b5e/c88/75d/f5e29fbfccdd311daf4db7a/x354-q80.jpg)

High heels on Shelley, Duncan? Really?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 06, 2018, 03:20:36 PM
High heels on Shelley, Duncan? Really?
You tell me, Alan.

(http://i1254.photobucket.com/albums/hh615/Speedletolion/shelleyorSenkelBill-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 06, 2018, 03:24:45 PM
You tell me, Alan.

(http://i1254.photobucket.com/albums/hh615/Speedletolion/shelleyorSenkelBill-2.jpg)

Er, no, Duncan. No high heels.

Besides, he would have been wearing the same shoes in Couch! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 06, 2018, 04:13:33 PM
Er, no, Duncan. No high heels.

Besides, he would have been wearing the same shoes in Couch! Thumb1:
I hope you're not just bluffing, Alan...You wouldn't do that? would you?

So, it appears from your confident post, that you have a clear photograph which clearly shows his footwear?... terrific!

Please post it so that I can estimate the height of his heels, just out of curiosity you understand.  ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on July 06, 2018, 04:37:57 PM
I hope you're not just bluffing, Alan...You wouldn't do that? would you?

So, it appears from your confident post, that you have a clear photograph which clearly shows his footwear?... terrific!

Please post it so that I can estimate the height of his heels, just out of curiosity you understand.  ::)

Where's your clear photo of him wearing built up shoes, Duncan?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 06, 2018, 06:14:05 PM
Where's your clear photo of him wearing built up shoes, Duncan?
Ray,

Please link refer me to any post where I said he had high heels, low heels or no heels at all.

Like Alan, you are not reading my posts correctly.

No need to apologise when you can't provide a link.  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 06, 2018, 07:26:32 PM
 
Quote
Jerry Freeman on Today at 12:55:23 AM

    OK but I just thought this guy is also about the same height and no I don't know when the clip was shot but say it was about 12:45...who can say?
    As far as Oswald's movements after he left the building...the official story is really silly.
    Probably really really silly is some almost 1200 posts trying to determine the identity of someone that is basically just a blob on film.
   
Quote
Alan Ford
Thanks for folding, Jerry, & good luck with your crucial, potentially case-breaking identification of a man whose back is to the camera! Thumb1:
And good luck with this gauntlet here that's consuming your life.
 
13:45PM perhaps but I doubt it's even 15m earlier
Based on??? Divination?

Why not see what the people that took and put together the clips said about the time?
 

 
Quote
ERNEST CHARLES MENTESANA

He was a 45-year-old owner of a grocery... His  film does not show the motorcade at all. But it shows various scenes taken several minutes after the shooting.

 (https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/mentesana-1.jpg?w=487&h=361)
In front of the Depository. Firetruck and a white KRLD-TV car

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/mentesana-2.jpg?w=471&h=352)
Two officers on the 7th floor, That?s not the front of the Depository, but the East side of it.

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/mentesana-3.jpg?w=479&h=359)
Investigators discussing. One has a shotgun. Amateur photographer Jay Skaggs is on the left. He also took a photo of that scene.
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 06, 2018, 07:34:33 PM
Presented below is a link to the Affidavit In Fact, provided by DPD MotorcycleOfficer MarrionLewisBaker, on the afternoon of 11/22/'63, shortly after he responded to shots fired in DealeyPlaza that caused the death of US President JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr, and critical wounding of Tx Governor JohnBowden ConnallyJr, at about 12:30pm, CST.

OfficerBaker had been escorting the PresidentialMotorcade, and was several in line vehicles behind the PresidentialLimousine that had turned onto westbound Elm St just prior the shooting. And, as OfficerBaker was still northbound on Houston St as the shots were fired, and approaching the TexasSchoolBook Depository Building, he reacted to his belief that the shooter could very possibly be somewhere inside, or on the roof of said building.

After parking his motorcycle near the TSBD Elm St entrance, he rushed into the building, unaided by any other law officer(s), but followed by and directionally assisted by TSBD Bldg Superintendent RoySansomTruly.

When counting TSBD floor levels, worth consideration is the fact that the first floor entrance was mid-level, not ground level. Therefor, anyone not totally familiar with the actual floor levels could easily mis-count said levels, especially during his pursuit, unaided by other officers, of a possible shooter. And, especially, again, while providing a first day affidavit soon after the occurence.

For clarification, I maintain my conclusion that OfficerBaker provided a factual account of his experience, to the best of his ability.


https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337201/m1/1/

And, worth noting that by the time he reached the SecondFloorLunchRoom, DPD Officer MarrionBaker had already encountered three flights of stairs, and was approaching a fourth flight of stairs.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 06, 2018, 08:55:10 PM
 
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/mentesana-1.jpg?w=487&h=361)
In front of the Depository. Firetruck and a white KRLD-TV car

"we are going to send a Fire Department Rescue Unit with a lot of rope to that location" - DPD radio broadcast, 12:54pm.

Now forgive me, Jerry, while I return to the much more minor question of where LHO was at the time of the shooting that consumed the life of President Kennedy  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 06, 2018, 08:56:52 PM
Wouldn't any plan to frame the patsy include not allowing him to be seen on the steps...unless the shots were to come from there?
It boggles the mind these crazy theories get legs .
Give some CTs a fuzzy image and prepare for decades of climbing down rabbit holes.

Yep, he certainly has LHO's hairline!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/m96HVNk.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 06, 2018, 11:27:22 PM
Were there not "multiple" occupants of the entrance area?
Were there not "hundreds nearby" viewing the motorcade?
Are you saying that LeeOswald would have gone unnoticed while standing on the landing, by anyone?

Were there not "multiple" occupants of the entrance area after the assassination?
Were there not "hundreds" by the Texas School Book Depository?
Are you saying that LeeOswald would have gone unnoticed in the front lobby or while exiting the building, by anyone?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 07, 2018, 02:05:20 AM
  Based on??? Divination?

Why not see what the people that took and put together the clips said about the time?
 

Because I'd rather go with a researcher's opinion that's based on all the evidence available rather than someone's memory.
Also what Alan gave us, around 1PM, just for the mention of a firetruck coming their way seems to put that "several minutes after the shooting" to sleep, wouldn't you agree?
How long has the truck been there, how long would it stay there? Other evidence shows it on Houston with, IIRC, the crowds now tied off(A Murray or Allen still), was that before or after this footage?
What's the real source of that "several minutes after" quote anyway? Detectives would want to know, Trask is not perfect but his observation based opinions are often interesting.
Looks to me like the traffic down Elm has been diverted by this time, find out what time that happened and perhaps you'll get another clue.

No one is going to have Oswald there after 1PM but PM could be stil be hanging around, if it's not Lee.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 07, 2018, 02:14:59 AM
Only from above, Barry---------------his body being turned southwest

Just checking ty and I tend to agree.
If correct, then a PM on the landing would be hit by twice the shadow that Frazier was receiving both from the wall and the ceiling.
Look at Darnell with just that in mind and like me one might find it even harder to put him higher than the top step.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 07, 2018, 02:31:47 AM


Now forgive me, Jerry, while I return to the much more minor question of where LHO was at the time of the shooting that consumed the life of President Kennedy. 

Well...you do that & good luck with all that.
Can you PM me when you find out?
 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 07, 2018, 02:35:35 AM
Were there not "multiple" occupants of the entrance area after the assassination?
Were there not "hundreds" by the Texas School Book Depository?
Are you saying that LeeOswald would have gone unnoticed in the front lobby or while exiting the building, by anyone?[/color][/size]


Were there not "multiple" occupants of the entrance area after the assassination most of whom were completely distracted to what was happening in the street, before, during and after the parade?
Were there not "hundreds" by the Texas School Book Depository none of whom knew or cared who LHO was?
Are you saying that a man unknown to 99% of these same people would have gone unnoticed in the front lobby or while exiting the building, by anyone? See above, the guy in the Gorilla suit experiment and real research into the realiability of witness observations..

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 07, 2018, 01:40:15 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/QR2WVzi.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 07, 2018, 02:03:43 PM
Here's 'Prayer Woman's face' in context! (Credit: Sandy Larsen Thumb1:)

(https://i.imgur.com/6MyJdHE.gif)

'She' is at about the same height as Lower Lovelady.

Problem!

This means that 'Prayer Woman With A Face' is a head lower than... Prayer Man!

(https://i.imgur.com/lSh5jNI.jpg)

Obvious Solution!

The 'face' is in fact Prayer Man's neck & chin.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 07, 2018, 02:10:14 PM
Well...you do that & good luck with all that.
Can you PM me when you find out?

Sure will, Jerry, but only if you promise to PM me first if you come up with a viable name for your Prayer Woman!  Thumb1:

Adams, Victoria Elizabeth
Aiken, Haddon Spurgeon 
Arce, Danny Garcia
Arnold, Carolyn (R.E.)
Barnum, Virginia H.
Berry, Jane
Burns, Doris Fay
Calvery, Gloria
Campbell, Ochus Virgil
Case, Edna
Cason, Jack Charles
Caster, Warren
Clay, Billie P. (Mrs Herman N.)
Davis, Avery (Mrs Charles Thomas Davis)
Davis, Mrs. Joseph A. (Vickie)
Dickerson, Mary Sue
Dorman, Elsie
Dougherty, Jack Edwin
Dragoo, Betty Jean
Elerson, Sandra Sue (Mrs Ronald G.)
Foster, Betty Alice
Frazier, Buell Wesley
Garner, Dorothy Ann
Givens, Charles Douglas
Hendrix, Georgia Ruth
Hicks, Karan (Mrs James Daniel)
Hine, Geneva L.
Holt, Gloria Jeannie
Hopson, Yola D.
Hughes, Carol
Jacob, Stella
Jarman, James Earl "Junior"
Johnson, Judy Marie
Jones, Carl Edward
Jones, Spaulden Earnest
Junker, Herbert L.
Kaiser, Frankie 
Kounas, Dolores Arlene
Lawrence, Patricia Ann
Lewis, Roy Edward
Lovelady, Billy Nolan
Lovelady, Dottie
McCulley, Judith Louise
Molina, Joe R.
Nelson, Ruth Smith
Nelson, Sharon
Norman, Harold Dean
Palmer, Helen L.
Parker, Roberta
Piper, Eddie
Rachley, Virgie (Mrs Donald Baker)
Reed, Carol
Reed, Martha
Reese, Madie Belle
Reid, Mrs. Robert A.
Richey, Bonnie
Sanders, Pauline
Shelley, William H.
Shields, Edward
Smith, Gordon
Springer, Pearl
Stansbery, Joyce Maurine
Stanton, Sarah D.
Styles, Sandra K.
Thornton, Betty Jean
Truly, Roy Sansom
Viles, Lloyd R.
West, Troy Eugene
Westbrook, Karen
Wester, Franklin Emmett
Whatley, Vida Lee
Whitaker, Lucy (Lupe)
Williams, Bonnie Ray
Williams, Mary Lee
Williams, Otis Neville
Wilson, Steven F.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 07, 2018, 02:59:05 PM
Sure will, Jerry, but only if you promise to PM me first if you come up with a viable name for your Prayer Woman...

 Has anybody/everybody decided on a name for the old lady holding on to her bag with both hands?
 If so...there you go.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 07, 2018, 03:20:36 PM

 Has anybody/everybody decided on a name for the old lady holding on to her bag with both hands?
 If so...there you go.

As I've already pointed out several times, Jerry, she's probably either Virginia H. Barnum or Vida Lee Whatley. But none of the anti-PMers want to look into that because it doesn't serve the agenda.

Even if she's not Virginia or Vida, she's of zero relevance to the Prayer Man debate because she can't be any of the female Depository employees on the steps at the time of the shooting. Period.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 07, 2018, 04:41:02 PM

 Has anybody/everybody decided on a name for the old lady holding on to her bag with both hands?
 If so...there you go.

Jerry:
For (my) clarification, which PersonImage are you referencing as "the old lady holding on to her bag with both hands"?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on July 07, 2018, 05:03:22 PM
It was a dude taking pictures with a camera...... IMHO
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 07, 2018, 06:13:53 PM
Jerry:
For   clarification, which PersonImage are you referencing as  "the old lady holding on to her bag with both hands"?

One more time for everybody...

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/martin-and-hughes-synch-gif.gif?w=911&h=343)

A  cop [apparently in securing the entry] allows a guy and another cop to go in.
The old bag holding the bag with both hands..uhh looks like she's praying ...she is the one in the blue coat... & acts like she doesn't know what to do with herself.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on July 07, 2018, 06:40:48 PM
One more time for everybody...

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/martin-and-hughes-synch-gif.gif?w=911&h=343)

A  cop [apparently in securing the entry] allows a guy and another cop to go in.
The old bag holding the bag with both hands..uhh looks like she's praying ...she is the one in the blue coat... & acts like she doesn't know what to do with herself.

The point with the old lady in the blue coat is to find her on another photos or videos. We have her only on Martin and Hughes films and we must find her somewhere else.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 07, 2018, 06:50:14 PM
Friends, we need to ask some simple questions!

QUESTION 1: Is Upper Lovelady in Wiegman on the landing or one step down?
ANSWER: He must be one step down because otherwise he, at similar height to Prayer-Man-If-On-Landing height, is too small to be the 5"8?' we know him to be.

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

QUESTION 2: Is Lower Lovelady in Wiegman one or two steps down?
ANSWER: He must, because of the answer to Question 1, be two steps down.

(https://i.imgur.com/2YzApzF.gif)

QUESTION 3: Is Prayer Man in Wiegman on the landing or one step down?
ANSWER: He must be one step down, otherwise it becomes impossible to replicate the very short distance Wiegman shows from his right elbow to the redbrick section:

(https://i.imgur.com/PunLfXK.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/bQLBJc3.jpg)

QUESTION 4: Does Prayer Man change steps between Wiegman and Darnell?
ANSWER: No good reason to think so!

QUESTION 5: If Prayer Man is one step down, what height is he?
ANSWER: 5"9'.

QUESTION 6: What height was Lee Harvey Oswald?
ANSWER: 5"9'.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 07, 2018, 07:38:06 PM
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VOq3Q6yZwAkYMC6_aRfxiyqwGkbOFHLQ/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VOq3Q6yZwAkYMC6_aRfxiyqwGkbOFHLQ/view?usp=sharing)

Photoshop default "shadow/highlight" adjustment:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hegp8e4ssboxPBdA2mfVAZlECq6ZcDJZ/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hegp8e4ssboxPBdA2mfVAZlECq6ZcDJZ/view?usp=sharing)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 07, 2018, 07:50:29 PM
Here's 'Prayer Woman's face' in context! (Credit: Sandy Larsen Thumb1:)

(https://i.imgur.com/6MyJdHE.gif)

'She' is at about the same height as Lower Lovelady.


Thank you Alan and Sandy and I'm sure deep in his heart Brian thanks you too.
.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 07, 2018, 07:57:42 PM
The point with the old lady in the blue coat is to find her on another photos or videos. We have her only on Martin and Hughes films and we must find her somewhere else.

You probably won't because she probably wasn't in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. (Cf. Virginia H. Barnum, Vida Lee Whatley.)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 07, 2018, 08:01:59 PM
Thank you Alan and Sandy and I'm sure deep in his heart Brian thanks you too.
.

Yes, the truth is all he ultimately cares about! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 07, 2018, 08:47:04 PM
To get a sense of just how humiliating a month it has been for the PrayerWoman=SarahStanton campaign, consider the following.

Before the emergence of the photo of Sarah Stanton, THIS was how Sarah's appearance was imagined:

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

A Classic.
(https://i.imgur.com/TQ8btcZ.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 07, 2018, 09:16:35 PM
It was me on the steps.

No more unrealistic than any of the other non-LHO candidates put forward to date  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 07, 2018, 09:16:53 PM
...
A  cop [apparently in securing the entry] allows a guy and another cop to go in.

That's actually more interesting to me and a nice moment to have on film, if you watch the full footage, you'll see Brennan come out from behind the cop in the door and pethaps sheepishly point out Norman and then secure himself back behind the same officer. All three men then get summoned toward the doors but BRW gets left on the steps, Jarman is the one we see going in I think.

As for Scarf Lady, well either she has a long white purse or a newspaper in her hands IMO.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 07, 2018, 09:44:14 PM
Thx for your support, will you buy my book?
I have another as well..."The Boy on the Steps"

Absolutely, James----------the face that Brian has scientifically identified as Prayer Man's gives him a height of 4"7'!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 07, 2018, 09:47:39 PM
Quote #1 from your 2nd post on page1(my emphasis).

You still think both Frazier and Lovelady were hit by shadow from the west wall, so nothing has changed and you're still very, very confused, "Andrej's shadow is wrong but the way it is now, proves me correct".
Need I go on?

Barry is uncredible because he is not reading the scene dynamically. An expert will confirm what I am saying at some point in the future.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 07, 2018, 10:19:47 PM
One more time for everybody...

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/martin-and-hughes-synch-gif.gif?w=911&h=343)

A  cop [apparently in securing the entry] allows a guy and another cop to go in.
The old bag holding the bag with both hands..uhh looks like she's praying ...she is the one in the blue coat... & acts like she doesn't know what to do with herself.


Jerry:
Again, as a reminder, again, about a year and a half ago, after viewing the clips of the MartinFilm, and HughesFilm, that I believe had previously been isolated by DuncanMacRae,  I concluded I could see some minor resemblance of the LadyImage and PrayerWomanImage.

In order to hopefully secure a positive identification, I started a thread, on another forum to do just that, wherever it lead. And, for lack of a better term, I referred to the LadyImage as ScarfLady, but later to be more accurate, I began referring to ScarfLady as ScarfLadyImage.

Therefor, out of respect, I continue to refer to said image as ScarfLadyImage, as no verifiable correct identity has been established. And, any "old lady" reference by me, was strictly a quote of your comment, seeking clarification.

Plainly stated, I do not know the age of ScarfLadyImage, nor do I see her as an "old bag holding the bag with both hands...uhh looks like she's praying". I see her purse/handbag, attached by strap to her left forearm, and held in that fashion. So, if 'another bag' is seen being held by both hands, it is not seen by me.

Admittedly, evidence has been presented, actual evidence, that indicates that ScarfLadyImage is not aka SarahDeanStanton. That said, although I am not disputing that evidence, I also am so far unable to embrace it as well.

As for the coat worn by ScarfLadyImage, it had rained in the area earlier, and had cooled off that late fall day.

I suppose not being able to 'know what to do with herself' is understandable, considering both the current President of the UnitedStates, and the current Governor of Texas had been shot, just minutes earlier, and just a few feet away from the building where, apparently, she was employed, as well as just across the street from the DallasCountySheriff's Department Building.


I do believe a similar indicative Reply posted previously may have been overlooked and/or ignored.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 08, 2018, 12:09:34 AM
Friends, we MUST account for the variable amount of wall showing between Prayer Man's right elbow and the redbrick section!

The very short gap in WIEGMAN makes it impossible to put Prayer Man anywhere other than one step down:

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

But! The gap is markedly larger in DARNELL:

(https://i.imgur.com/H74f39o.jpg)

I don't believe this can be explained away simply by the slightly different POV between the two cameramen.

Seems to me the only credible explanation------------barring other credible suggestions! Thumb1:-------------is the following:

When Prayer Man in Wiegman moves his right hand up to his mouth, his right elbow is raised correspondingly:

(https://i.imgur.com/npnpDF1.gif)

Now if Prayer Man were to fold his arms, we would expect to see that right elbow higher than it was when he wasn't eating/drinking and slightly east of where it was when he was. And that's exactly what we do see in Darnell:

(https://i.imgur.com/H74f39o.jpg)

So I submit!:

-Prayer Man in Wiegman has his hands in the 'prayer' formation
-Prayer Man in Darnell has his arms folded.

No other solution seems to me to naturally allow Prayer Man to stay on the same step AND change so obviously the position of his right elbow!

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on July 08, 2018, 10:02:24 AM
You probably won't because she probably wasn't in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. (Cf. Virginia H. Barnum, Vida Lee Whatley.)

The thing with the Scarf lady in blue coat is that she could not be TSBD employee. She was wearing a coat which means that she went to watch motorcade early and was outside all the time. If she was TSBD employee she would not take raincoat to go out at 12:20-12:25. Right? We must find here somewhere else before Martin/Hughes films.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 08, 2018, 03:34:36 PM
The thing with the Scarf lady in blue coat is that she could not be TSBD employee. She was wearing a coat which means that she went to watch motorcade early and was outside all the time. If she was TSBD employee she would not take raincoat to go out at 12:20-12:25. Right? We must find here somewhere else before Martin/Hughes films.

I do apologize for entering into your conversation with AlanFord, but I have to question the validity of your expressed theory that the person represented by ScarfLadyImage cannot be employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building, with your reasoning of said person wearing a coat

There are numerous indications of MalePersonImages representing males at and/or near the TSBD Bldg wearing jackets/coats at about the same time. But no, I do not know the exact number, and it is not necessary to validate "numerous", as it applies.

Also, there are numerous indications of FemalePersonImages representing females at and/or near the TSBD Bldg wearing coats at about the same time. But no, again, I do not know the exact number, and it is not necessary to validate "numerous", as it applies.


So, for clarification, it is my developed conclusion that ScarfLadyImage represents a female that was then employed at the TSBD Bldg, and the HughesFilm as well as the MartinFilm are indicative of an employee at said building attempting to return to her work area.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 08, 2018, 04:33:36 PM
I do apologize for entering into your conversation with AlanFord, but I have to question the validity of your expressed theory that the person represented by ScarfLadyImage cannot be employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building, with your reasoning of said person wearing a coat

There are numerous indications of MalePersonImages representing males at and/or near the TSBD Bldg wearing jackets/coats at about the same time. But no, I do not know the exact number, and it is not necessary to validate "numerous", as it applies.

Also, there are numerous indications of FemalePersonImages representing females at and/or near the TSBD Bldg wearing coats at about the same time. But no, again, I do not know the exact number, and it is not necessary to validate "numerous", as it applies.


So, for clarification, it is my developed conclusion that ScarfLadyImage represents a female that was then employed at the TSBD Bldg, and the HughesFilm as well as the MartinFilm are indicative of an employee at said building attempting to return to her work area.

Here she is again, Larry, courtesy of Chris Davidson.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Scarfladychrisd.gif)
I don't know the time of this short clip, as Chris didn't provide any further info along with the Video clip.


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 08, 2018, 05:02:46 PM
Here she is again, Larry, courtesy of Chris Davidson.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Scarfladychrisd.gif)
I don't know the time of this short clip, as Chris didn't provide any further info along with the Video clip.

Yes, I have seen that image before, and possibly, an actual photograph form a similar angle.
I do see a resemblance of LadyImage as seen on the stairs speaking to a gentleman, to ScarfLadyImage and PrayerWomanImage.
My time guesstimation would be as LadyImage is leaving the TSBD Bldg for the day, maybe about 2:20pm CST on 11/22/'63. Certainly no later than about 2;30pm CST.
Good find, good post.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on July 08, 2018, 05:45:55 PM
I do apologize for entering into your conversation with AlanFord, but I have to question the validity of your expressed theory that the person represented by ScarfLadyImage cannot be employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building, with your reasoning of said person wearing a coat

There are numerous indications of MalePersonImages representing males at and/or near the TSBD Bldg wearing jackets/coats at about the same time. But no, I do not know the exact number, and it is not necessary to validate "numerous", as it applies.

Also, there are numerous indications of FemalePersonImages representing females at and/or near the TSBD Bldg wearing coats at about the same time. But no, again, I do not know the exact number, and it is not necessary to validate "numerous", as it applies.


So, for clarification, it is my developed conclusion that ScarfLadyImage represents a female that was then employed at the TSBD Bldg, and the HughesFilm as well as the MartinFilm are indicative of an employee at said building attempting to return to her work area.

If we accept that the Scarf Lady is wearing a rain coat what are the chances she is TSBD employee? Very, very low. Most of the TSBD employees left their working positions between 12:10-12:30 when the rain was well over and there was a nice sun so what are the chances TSBD employee would take her rain coat to go outside to watch the motorcade? Very, very low.
Scarf lady was a person who lived reasonably away from Dallas, who left her home early in the morning while it was raining or about to rain and that is why she had a rain coat. Same as people in Fort Worth, most of them had rain coats.
Once again, there are slim chances TSBD employee would take rain coat to go down and watch motorcade at noon. Same as you see many spectators in Dallas do not have rain coats because they lived close and did not have to leave their homes early in the morning while it was raining.

Luckily, I quickly found this image on my files. I think this was Scarf Lady but have to find here somewhere else too.
(https://s26.postimg.cc/qquknl455/snapshot204_-_Copy_zpsx7se6roz.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 08, 2018, 06:03:46 PM
Friends, we MUST account for the variable amount of wall showing between Prayer Man's right elbow and the redbrick section!

The very short gap in WIEGMAN makes it impossible to put Prayer Man anywhere other than one step down:

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

But! The gap is markedly larger in DARNELL:

(https://i.imgur.com/H74f39o.jpg)

I don't believe this can be explained away simply by the slightly different POV between the two cameramen.

Seems to me the only credible explanation------------barring other credible suggestions! Thumb1:-------------is the following:

When Prayer Man in Wiegman moves his right hand up to his mouth, his right elbow is raised correspondingly:

(https://i.imgur.com/npnpDF1.gif)

Now if Prayer Man were to fold his arms, we would expect to see that right elbow higher than it was when he wasn't eating/drinking and slightly east of where it was when he was. And that's exactly what we do see in Darnell:

(https://i.imgur.com/H74f39o.jpg)

So I submit!:

-Prayer Man in Wiegman has his hands in the 'prayer' formation
-Prayer Man in Darnell has his arms folded.

No other solution seems to me to naturally allow Prayer Man to stay on the same step AND change so obviously the position of his right elbow!
I have to conclude that I see no, as in not any, as in none, as in zero, evidence to justify a conclusion that the doorway/entrance portal stairs/landing image(s) indicate that PrayerPersonImage is standing, partially or fully, on any stair/step lower than the landing atop the stairway.
Although I make no claim of film/photography expertise, there appears to be some angle and/or distance variation between separate images, as where the doorway images appear to be size similar, there appears to be a definite size difference between them, and that of the occupants on the street when viewing the 'comparison' similar scene film images.
I have to conclude, also, there now appears to be 'versions' of filmed/pictured similar scenes of the portal area relative to the PrayerPersonImage identity debate. And, 'versions' appear to have image(s) adjustment(s), as well as additional image(s) insertions, So, maybe time has come for film/photograph authentication if used to 'illustrate debatable evidence'.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 08, 2018, 06:20:54 PM
If we accept that the Scarf Lady is wearing a rain coat what are the chances she is TSBD employee? Very, very low. Most of the TSBD employees left their working positions between 12:10-12:30 when the rain was well over and there was a nice sun so what are the chances TSBD employee would take her rain coat to go outside to watch the motorcade? Very, very low.
Scarf lady was a person who lived reasonably away from Dallas, who left her home early in the morning while it was raining or about to rain and that is why she had a rain coat. Same as people in Fort Worth, most of them had rain coats.
Once again, there are slim chances TSBD employee would take rain coat to go down and watch motorcade at noon. Same as you see many spectators in Dallas do not have rain coats because they lived close and did not have to leave their homes early in the morning while it was raining.

She's probably Virginia H. Barnum!  Thumb1:

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

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 08, 2018, 06:34:52 PM
Your persistent arrogance and unhealthy narcissistic self praise are not virtues to be admired, Brian.

 Thumb1:

Quote
So far, and just like everyone else involved in studying Prayer Person here and elsewhere, you have proven absolutely nothing.

You're being too hard on Brian, Duncan-------he proved that Sarah Stanton is not Prayer Man, thus depriving the anti-PMers of their last little bit of wriggle-room!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 08, 2018, 06:36:10 PM
Although I make no claim of film/photography expertise, there appears to be some angle and/or distance variation between separate images, as where the doorway images appear to be size similar, there appears to be a definite size difference between them

SHOW us!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 08, 2018, 06:42:34 PM
Brilliantly put, Mr Walton!  Thumb1:

You really think so, Alan? :)

TIP: Research the post to which Michael refers before you reply.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 08, 2018, 06:44:29 PM
You really think so, Alan? :)

TIP: Research the post to which Michael refers before you reply.

TIP: Research my full reply to Michael's post before you reply!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 08, 2018, 06:52:25 PM
TIP: Research my full reply to Michael's post before you reply!  Thumb1:

TIP 2: Research TIP 1 again (you're missing Michael's blatant error) before you make your second reply.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 08, 2018, 07:15:48 PM
If we accept that the Scarf Lady is wearing a rain coat what are the chances she is TSBD employee? Very, very low. Most of the TSBD employees left their working positions between 12:10-12:30 when the rain was well over and there was a nice sun so what are the chances TSBD employee would take her rain coat to go outside to watch the motorcade? Very, very low.
Scarf lady was a person who lived reasonably away from Dallas, who left her home early in the morning while it was raining or about to rain and that is why she had a rain coat. Same as people in Fort Worth, most of them had rain coats.
Once again, there are slim chances TSBD employee would take rain coat to go down and watch motorcade at noon. Same as you see many spectators in Dallas do not have rain coats because they lived close and did not have to leave their homes early in the morning while it was raining.

Luckily, I quickly found this image on my files. I think this was Scarf Lady but have to find here somewhere else too.
(https://s26.postimg.cc/qquknl455/snapshot204_-_Copy_zpsx7se6roz.jpg)
'Luckily' is a 'variable' in the eye of the beholder. But, while I accept ScarfLadyImage to be wearing a coat, and it being a 'raincoat' is only a possibility, not a probability to me at this time, if it ever was.

In any event, your applied logic escapes my realm of situational understanding. However, you might consider carefully viewing any number of films and photographs of the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building and the surrounding DealeyPlaza area beginning about noon CST, and though about 3:00pm CST, on 11/22/'63, since you appear to conclude any female wearing a coat could not have been employed at the TSBD Bldg at the time.

Worth remembering, the shots fired in DealeyPlaza at about 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63, propelled a soon to be over motorcade into forever, one that would have passed through DealeyPlaza in likely less than 5 minutes in it's entirety.

I observed a motorcade, just a few feet away from the street, with President JohnKennedySr, riding in that same limousine, but atop the back seat instead of in it. And, said motorcade was just after a historic speech, but how many films and/or photographs of that motorcade event are readily available for viewing?

It did occur, and I was about as close to the limousine in that motorcade, also in Texas, as any Dallas motorcade viewer in DealeyPlaza, not in the street. However, the motorcade I observed was just minutes long, and never forever.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 08, 2018, 07:17:11 PM
One step down

(https://i.imgur.com/8gks6zV.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 08, 2018, 07:26:07 PM
SHOW us!  Thumb1:

You, poster known as AlanFord, presented it already by posting said images.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 08, 2018, 07:37:25 PM
I have to conclude that I see no, as in not any, as in none, as in zero, evidence to justify a conclusion that the doorway/entrance portal stairs/landing image(s) indicate that PrayerPersonImage is standing, partially or fully, on any stair/step lower than the landing atop the stairway.
Although I make no claim of film/photography expertise, there appears to be some angle and/or distance variation between separate images, as where the doorway images appear to be size similar, there appears to be a definite size difference between them, and that of the occupants on the street when viewing the 'comparison' similar scene film images.
I have to conclude, also, there now appears to be 'versions' of filmed/pictured similar scenes of the portal area relative to the PrayerPersonImage identity debate. And, 'versions' appear to have image(s) adjustment(s), as well as additional image(s) insertions, So, maybe time has come for film/photograph authentication if used to 'illustrate debatable evidence'.

Quote bumped forward for confirmation as to the complete statement as posted.

Otherwise, an incomplete quote might be dishonestly posted, by an absolutely dishonest person claiming to exhibit honesty where there is none!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 08, 2018, 11:49:42 PM
SHOW us!  Thumb1:

This Reply, is a response to a quote posted by a poster known as AlanFord, as posted and seen in a Reply previously posted. But, unless removed, a click on the reference quote link will show the Posted Reply.

Not only is it a partial quote of only one paragraph, the poster failed to even quote the complete sentence, thereby leaving out the actual comparison. And, said action completely changes the context of the post he indicates quoting.

The actions of a poster known as AlanFord, as proven because his "SHOW us!" comment, shows no indication of mistake, and beyond doubt a dishonest presentation of an incomplete sentence erroneously indicating a complete honest quote. An act of blatant dishonesty as presented, and such activity should not be allowed on any forum that seeks to exhibit credibility.

A blatantly dishonest post, indicates a blatantly dishonest poster. And, I had refrained from responding in this manner, awaiting for a possible relative comment from DuncanMacRae, but that is his decision to make. So, to me a justified response beyond choice.

Lache Pas La Patate
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 09, 2018, 01:48:35 AM
TIP 2: Research TIP 1 again (you're missing Michael's blatant error) before you make your second reply.

I think the mistake that Duncan refers to is that dispite critisizing Brian, Michael actually quoted Duncan's P1 remarks, I could tell just by the way it's worded, I shouldn't have to check(I haven't) since I was there again just yesterday and Brian's own thoughts are so... "unique?" and far less diplomatic.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 09, 2018, 02:25:20 AM
Yes, I have seen that image before, and possibly, an actual photograph form a similar angle.
I do see a resemblance of LadyImage as seen on the stairs speaking to a gentleman, to ScarfLadyImage and PrayerWomanImage.
My time guesstimation would be as LadyImage is leaving the TSBD Bldg for the day, maybe about 2:20pm CST on 11/22/'63. Certainly no later than about 2;30pm CST.
Good find, good post.


Note the young "reporter", noticed in other images posted in this thread, Murray or Allen and Willis.
Also note the two cops still guarding either side of the door, they weren't there forever. So late in the first hour IMO...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 09, 2018, 03:09:07 AM
...
I have to conclude, also, there now appears to be 'versions' of filmed/pictured similar scenes of the portal area relative to the PrayerPersonImage identity debate. And, 'versions' appear to have image(s) adjustment(s), as well as additional image(s) insertions , So, maybe time has come for film/photograph authentication if used to 'illustrate debatable evidence'.

Hey reader! How are ya? Seriously, hope you're well.

Any idea what he's talking about(highlighted and bolded for you)? Any idea at all?
I'd like to know.
Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on July 10, 2018, 05:12:05 PM
Instead of telling us how Stancak is wrong, Brian. Show us your calculations and reconstructions.


p.s. know how a sun dial works yet?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 10, 2018, 08:44:38 PM
Something interesting!

Chris Davidson has developed an exploratory graphic from Andrej Stancak:

(https://i.imgur.com/OtJuFPf.gif)

Note that the west shadow falls EXACTLY where I am suggesting Prayer Man's body ends (i.e. if his arms are folded). Coincidence? I think not!

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 10, 2018, 10:17:25 PM
...
Note that the west shadow falls EXACTLY where I am suggesting Prayer Man's body ends (i.e. if his arms are folded). Coincidence? I think not!

Hardly a coincidence Alan when the source for the shadows comes from Andrej who has to be consistent :)

Here's the thing.
The animation shows how his own block fits neatly in front of PM, not in his place, contradicting everything he's been working toward for months.
So do we congratulate him or ban him? Light a candle, say a prayer or take up square dancin'?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 10, 2018, 10:36:42 PM
Hardly a coincidence Alan when the source for the shadows comes from Andrej who has to be consistent :)

As I understand it, Barry, Andrej has asked himself how Prayer Man can be so far forward (i.e. on the first step down) without his left forearm catching sunlight. His solution has been to give Prayer Man a turn eastwards so that said forearm remain far enough back to stay in the shade. I think he's misread the image and given himself needless trouble! The way I read the image, PM has his arms folded. He is deliberately staying out of the sun---------and has chosen the farthest point forward (=1 step down) that still allows him to do this.

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

(https://i.imgur.com/m9XNxAI.jpg)

The Darnell image with contrast boosted suggests that only his left elbow----------which Andrej is mistaking for his right hand-----------may be catching direct sunlight. The 'left forearm' IMO is something behind PM!

(https://i.imgur.com/W0Bd5vu.jpg)


Quote
Here's the thing.
The animation shows how his own block fits neatly in front of PM, not in his place, contradicting everything he's been working toward for months.
So do we congratulate him or ban him? Light a candle, say a prayer or take up square dancin'?

Not sure that's what Andrej's done here, Barry. He's simply placed a 5"2' block (=5"2' as measured to his doorway model) at the very edge of the landing and seen what happens if he extends it across the landing.

(https://i.imgur.com/OtJuFPf.gif)

He's not suggesting the block is in front of PM.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 11, 2018, 12:46:11 AM
Apologies if this has been brought up earlier...

Quote
Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say anything about Oswald saying anything about his leaving the Texas School Book Depository after the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He said, as I remember, actually, in answer to questions there, he mentioned that when lunchtime came, one of the Negro employees asked him if. he would like to sit and each lunch with him, and he said, "Yes, but I can't go right now." He said, "You go and take the elevator on down." No, he said, "You go ahead, but send the elevator back up."
He didn't say up where, and he didn't mention what floor he was on. Nobody seemed to ask him.
You see, I assumed that obvious questions like that had been asked in previous interrogation. So I didn't interrupt too much, but he said, "Send the elevator back up to me."
Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about." 
And he wouldn't tell what happened then.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm

To me "downstairs" means he went down the stairs.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 11, 2018, 02:34:38 AM
...
He's not suggesting the block is in front of PM.

No of course not but I am Alan, at least that's the way it looks to me.
Look at the thickness of the block on the right and then imagine it on the wall, it's on the landing and fits nicely in front of him, giving me the idea that PM was further back, which was certainly not Andrej's intention.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 11, 2018, 03:50:05 AM
Apologies if this has been brought up earlier...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm

To me "downstairs" means he went down the stairs.

In an effort to provide access to MrHolmes' complete statement/testimony, I have also provided a link. But, what stands out for me, is MrHolmes' comment about his testimony being "not" what was said, but his "impression" of what was said, and notes of LeeHarveyOswald's interrogation on Sunday, 11/24/'63, were written on "December 17, 1963", about 3 weeks later.

During MrHolmes' testimony, available for viewing, he also said that from his view overlooking the area, he "saw nothing suspicious", prior to the PresidentJohnKennedySrAssassination shooting that also critically wounded GovernorJohnConnallyJr. And, MrHolmes testified that he is a "trained suspicioner". ???


No need to take my word for it.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 11, 2018, 08:22:15 AM
No of course not but I am Alan, at least that's the way it looks to me.
Look at the thickness of the block on the right and then imagine it on the wall, it's on the landing and fits nicely in front of him, giving me the idea that PM was further back, which was certainly not Andrej's intention.

Barry, even if Prayer Man is one step down but we are not seeing his legs then it's hard to see how the wall will not still give such an impression.

(https://i.imgur.com/OtJuFPf.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 11, 2018, 05:24:53 PM

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/PM_1.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 11, 2018, 05:41:16 PM
You said you were "too ill to moderate." Bit of a porky there, Duncan. You weren't a moderator.

I never said I was a moderator at the Ed Forum...geez.... you're losing it, Ray.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on July 11, 2018, 05:43:14 PM
I never said I was a moderator at the Ed Forum...geez.... you're losing it, Ray.


What did you mean when you said "I was unable to moderate for health reasons."

Moderators moderate. What were you unable to moderate?

Seems you may still be in the same position.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 12, 2018, 12:30:55 PM
Wow, it's a FACE!

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwa1.jpg)

Alternatively, let's be BORING and look at the image in context!

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

Clearly, Prayer Man is a member of the Ku Klux Klan!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 12, 2018, 04:28:46 PM
Wow, it's a FACE!

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwa1.jpg)

Alternatively, let's be BORING and look at the image in context!

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

Clearly, Prayer Man is a member of the Ku Klux Klan!  Thumb1:

Although generally speaking, for clarity I do hope that the readers of this forum, especially casual readers, understand that posted comments in new threads, and replies to existing threads, should by attributed to the actual person that posted said Reply/Comment.. Specifically, it is hopefully understood that a non reply by others, is just that, and does not, as well should not, indicate agreement or disagreement.

Should I feel I have developed a conclusion, and/or opinion, and wish to express such, I will do so. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 12, 2018, 08:00:45 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/R5d0bi2.jpg)

Definitely a match!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 13, 2018, 02:29:08 AM
I maintain my estimate of the photographic image representing SarahStanton to be about 10 years later than the filmed PrayerWomanImage.

What it means is, is that since "Stanton" looks at least 10 years older than someone in her early 40s, then the image Brian shared with us must be from the 1970's and not the 1960's and especially not from '62-64, using that same logic- if she looks like she's in her early 60's then the image must be from the 1980's, or perhaps one begins to except alternatives, one being that it ain't the Stanton who worked at the TSBD and Wilma played him for a fool and at this stage who would blame her or... she looks older than she actually was?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 13, 2018, 05:11:01 AM
The power of cropping!

3.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwa1.jpg)

2.

(https://i.imgur.com/2nqm1mz.jpg)

1.

(https://i.imgur.com/BXnSEfG.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 13, 2018, 12:28:34 PM
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/PM_1.gif)

Is it a 'known factor' whether or not each of, and/or both of, the film stills/pictures as shown here include any alteration(s) of, and/or enhancement(s)to, PrayerPersonImage, aka PrayerWomanImage?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on July 13, 2018, 01:25:32 PM
Is it a 'known factor' whether or not each of, and/or both of, the film stills/pictures as shown here include any alteration(s) of, and/or enhancement(s)to, PrayerPersonImage, aka PrayerWomanImage?

Larry - that's a nice GIF by I'm assuming Chris "boil an egg" - "every single god-xxxxed film and photo of the assassination is fake" Davidson.

Chris Davidson? Who is so crazy with his mathematical formulas that Peg Barker's forum actually has a hilarious parody of his weirdly funny Swan Song Math Rules post on the Ed Forum?

* I had Parker's URL here but this system scrubbed it - look it up and you'll find it * skunk-smells-math-sucks

What is your point here, Larry?  Are you now saying that these films were somehow - GASP! - faked or altered in some way? And for whatever reason, Larry?

I mean, come on.  Let's stay on point here.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 13, 2018, 04:28:23 PM

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/PShop.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 13, 2018, 08:52:58 PM
Larry - that's a nice GIF by I'm assuming Chris "boil an egg" - "every single god-xxxxed film and photo of the assassination is fake" Davidson.

Chris Davidson? Who is so crazy with his mathematical formulas that Peg Barker's forum actually has a hilarious parody of his weirdly funny Swan Song Math Rules post on the Ed Forum?

* I had Parker's URL here but this system scrubbed it - look it up and you'll find it * skunk-smells-math-sucks

What is your point here, Larry?  Are you now saying that these films were somehow - GASP! - faked or altered in some way? And for whatever reason, Larry?

I mean, come on.  Let's stay on point here.

Actually Michael, I asked a relative question, and was not stating anything. Should curiosity be applied, the accuracy of any image of the two scenes overlaid can be a judgement call.
However, the PrayerWomanImage position, indicative sizing, and stance angle are not as I recall seeing on earlier pictured scene versions.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 13, 2018, 09:19:52 PM
Question!

Based on the respective reflections in the glass door of Frazier and the man (?) to his left, is it safe to say that Frazier is further back on the landing than said man?

(https://i.imgur.com/OR6V5JP.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 14, 2018, 01:19:49 AM
^
Anyone who's watched Darnell enough will know the door is moving based on the changing reflection in the glass...

Alan,
yes I for one can see the difference but perhaps Frazier's was on the solid glass panel and Stanton's was on the (moving)door, would that matter? Wouldn't mind seeing more frames like that in motion...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 14, 2018, 05:30:35 PM
Brian, STOP referring people to other venues to view YOUR images. If you have one of YOUR image analysis to discuss, post the Friggin thing here.

When Alan refers to an image, he posts it here. There's no reason apart from your laziness, that you can't or won't do the same.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 14, 2018, 09:07:22 PM
Brian, STOP referring people to other venues to view YOUR images. If you have one of YOUR image analysis to discuss, post the Friggin thing here.

When Alan refers to an image, he posts it here. There's no reason apart from your laziness, that you can't or won't do the same.

Being somewhat of an old school mindset, I do wonder, as I wander, if posted images have any authenticity factor requirement, unless specifically indicated otherwise if enhanced and/or altered?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 14, 2018, 09:37:19 PM
...do posted images have any authenticity factor requirement...?

No, if you think something looks off say so, or post detailed evidence of your claim.
Start now by explaining exactly what you are getting at, plain English, be brief.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 14, 2018, 09:43:49 PM
^
Anyone who's watched Darnell enough will know the door is moving based on the changing reflection in the glass...

^
That was a response to Brian claiming we had no reflections in the glass(JIC anyone thinks it looks odd).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 14, 2018, 10:00:06 PM
^
Anyone who's watched Darnell enough will know the door is moving based on the changing reflection in the glass...

Alan,
yes I for one can see the difference but perhaps Frazier's was on the solid glass panel and Stanton's was on the (moving)door, would that matter? Wouldn't mind seeing more frames like that in motion...

As I think you noted at the time, Barry, this footage Chris Davidson gave us is v. helpful for understanding POV in Darnell:

(https://i.imgur.com/Qvs1yqq.jpg)

So! My read of the Frazier & A. N. Other reflections in Darnell is that the frame I posted------------

(https://i.imgur.com/eVk1zIb.jpg)

-------------shows the centre door CLOSED,

...BUT the reflections shift in the next frame and then disappear in subsequent frames because the door is being opened (i.e. pushed OUTWARDS) from the inside:

(https://i.imgur.com/wBDT1q2.gif)



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 15, 2018, 09:42:23 AM
Brians problem, apparently, is with his Mouse or/and computer. He has been saying for years that he can't copy the Photo URL to paste his images on this Forum.

Thanks Duncan. I'm guessing the problem was he didn't use the BBCode and instead pasted in a non-forum-friendly URL.

Brian-----if you're reading, use THIS URL and all your problems will be solved!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/5nzc3Zt.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 15, 2018, 10:49:12 AM
Thanks Duncan. I'm guessing the problem was he didn't use the BBCode and instead pasted in a non-forum-friendly URL.

No Alan, the problem is that he can't copy and he cant paste anything.

Years ago, like you, I suggested he upload his images to an image hosting site, and use the provided URL.

As usual, he did not repond or thank me for my simple solution suggestion.

This is the reason that Brian is not liked much by the JFK community. His arrogance and self centred narcissistic traits do him no favours.

He could alternately use his keyboard to copy and paste, there are plenty of tutorials online, so simple that a 5 year old could learn how do it in minutes

Will Brian do it?.....Let's see.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 15, 2018, 11:47:53 AM
No Alan, the problem is that he can't copy and he cant paste anything.

Years ago, like you, I suggested he upload his images to an image hosting site, and use the provided URL.

As usual, he did not repond or thank me for my simple solution suggestion.

This is the reason that Brian is not liked much by the JFK community. His arrogance and self centred narcissistic traits do him no favours.

He could alternately use his keyboard to copy and paste, there are plenty of tutorials online, so simple that a 5 year old could learn how do it in minutes

Will Brian do it?.....Let's see.

Here's hoping, Duncan!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 15, 2018, 05:53:54 PM
Being somewhat of an old school mindset, I do wonder, as I wander, if posted images have any authenticity factor requirement, unless specifically indicated otherwise if enhanced and/or altered?

Yes, all images are original and authenticated in advance by Gary Mack, any forgeries or tampering result in immeadiate suspension(I guess you're safe eh).
!00% legit straight from Darnell to your damned eyes.
(https://i.imgur.com/MG7ZnVL.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 15, 2018, 06:02:12 PM
Looks like the door's being open inwards to me Alan and if F and S are as close to the door as you think, that would be the polite thing to do, I'm assuming it opened both ways anyway. I think you're right though, door starts from closed position and thaose shadows looks legit.

Do you think Fraziers pos' on the landing makes a difference?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 15, 2018, 06:19:06 PM
Looks like the door's being open inwards to me Alan and if F and S are as close to the door as you think, that would be the polite thing to do, I'm assuming it opened both ways anyway. I think you're right though, door starts from closed position and thaose shadows looks legit.

Do you think Fraziers pos' on the landing makes a difference?

Barry, what these two reflections---------

(https://i.imgur.com/OR6V5JP.jpg)

-----------suggest to me is that Frazier is nearer the door than A.N.Other. However, as the door handle is on its east side, it's possible for someone inside to open the door by pushing it a little forward without the door hitting A.N.Other (i.e. the person coming out can slip out without opening the door fully).

However! The very next frame, and the way Frazier's reflection seems to move a little east----------

(https://i.imgur.com/OR6V5JP.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/wPPybVh.jpg)

-----------suggests that you may be right about the door being opened inwards!  Thumb1:


Frazier's being further back on the landing may be irrelevant to the Prayer Man issue, then again maybe not
-----------relative height calculations can be thrown off by this kind of thing!

BTW------------do you think A.N.Other is Sarah Stanton?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 15, 2018, 06:30:28 PM
Compare relative height of motorcycle cop's reflected head and his actual head, here------

(https://i.imgur.com/Qvs1yqq.jpg)

--------with relative height of Frazier's reflected head and HIS actual head, here:

(https://i.imgur.com/eVk1zIb.jpg)

I'm not at all sure Frazier is as far forward on the landing as Andrej puts him!

(https://i.imgur.com/osFCnun.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on July 15, 2018, 07:22:58 PM
Compare relative height of motorcycle cop's reflected head and his actual head, here------

(https://i.imgur.com/Qvs1yqq.jpg)

--------with relative height of Frazier's reflected head and HIS actual head, here:

(https://i.imgur.com/eVk1zIb.jpg)

I'm not at all sure Frazier is as far forward on the landing as Andrej puts him!

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

It never fails - every single time I see Stancak's cartoon model with that leg down on the second step, I get a big kick out of it.  Figuratively speaking. That's his way of justifying how the 5-9 LHO appear much shorter up there. Hilarious!

And yet, if it's a *woman* up there - much shorter and there to see the president go by - why in the world would she be standing with one leg down, knowing she's short and would want both legs up there to peer over everyone else.

It's hilarious while also being fxxxing goofy too.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 15, 2018, 07:29:33 PM
Ahh, no reason for me to think it can only be Stanton Alan, It's just for my convenience really and in part, a reaction of sorts. An antidote or crucifix.

You look to be right with Frazier, the shadow he casts on the door and the lintel's own from above, both suggest he's further back,
"Stanton" or w/e always looked to be behind or beside him, clearly wrong now.
IMO that door cannot overhang the landing, for safety/architectural reasons, we can see that officer is at the end of it and the shadow more or less matches that on BWF.
Seems obvious now after what you posted that either Frasier was further back than that cop or he was slightly taller.

Frazier's shadow does indeed move east on the door, I see it now too ty but... let's wait for Brian "what reflections?" comfirmation.
On that side, no matter which way the door opens he was pretty safe and I agree, it now look's like he's right up next to it.

.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on July 15, 2018, 07:32:42 PM
This simulation shows how the reflections change in Darnell with the door opening inwards. No such reflections are seen with the door opening outwards (toward the camera).  Also, the reflection is shown for PP advancing back near the corner towards the edge of the landing. Both Frazier and the man to his left are  near the front edge of the landing.


(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/7rCoM5UfJLPCM7YIxowf7INo2dkgcx2cxuN-sbOxqufuEmPRDpaDlemGu48t2dLp_Q0IF7rS-FEgusDxdhwH=w1440-h767)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 15, 2018, 07:43:51 PM
Are you trying to hypnotise us with that door James?
Must... resist. must resisssssst!

Very nice.

Btw I'm a lemon popsicle.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on July 15, 2018, 07:52:09 PM
Ah, it's working LOL  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 15, 2018, 08:03:37 PM
It never fails - every single time I see Stancak's cartoon model with that leg down on the second step, I get a big kick out of it.  Figuratively speaking. That's his way of justifying how the 5-9 LHO appear much shorter up there. Hilarious!

And yet, if it's a *woman* up there - much shorter and there to see the president go by - why in the world would she be standing with one leg down, knowing she's short and would want both legs up there to peer over everyone else.

It's hilarious while also being fxxxing goofy too.
Maybe Michael, another "LeeHarveyOswaldTrialMovie" can be made, and maybe LHO's defense can be based on the cartoon model, uhh, I mean virtual entrance portal, with the added cartoon characters, uhh, uhh, I mean inserted mannequins.
Don'tcha see Michael?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 15, 2018, 08:31:47 PM
Michael,
your focusing on the wrong leg I think.
Everyone else get's a kick from the leg that's up and it's awkward stance of course, the one on the step is fine.
One step down was one step closer to Jackie, that's not a problem at least not in a model.


Btw for others, Frazier never noticed Jackie was turned the other way when she came around that corner, he never mentioned it, how could he forget that?
"It was just like in the photographs" he said, meaning the ones in the magazines, obviously the ones where he was looking at the back/side of Jackie's head.

That turn onto Elm is unforgettable for me for one reason, Jackie noticed the young girl with the video camera, thought it unusual and/or cool and took it all in.

BWF: "I turned to Sarah and said, "the side of Jackie's head looked so pretty"".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 15, 2018, 08:42:08 PM
Barry, what these two reflections---------

(https://i.imgur.com/OR6V5JP.jpg)

-----------suggest to me is that Frazier is nearer the door than A.N.Other. However, as the door handle is on its east side, it's possible for someone inside to open the door by pushing it a little forward without the door hitting A.N.Other (i.e. the person coming out can slip out without opening the door fully).
...


It always seemed obvious too, that the person stood east of Frazier was hit partly by his shadow and yet now we see the shadow on "her" head alone puts this person again, closer to the camera than him.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 15, 2018, 08:52:16 PM
Maybe Michael, another "LeeHarveyOswaldTrialMovie" can be made, and maybe LHO's defense can be based on the cartoon model, uhh, I mean virtual entrance portal, with the added cartoon characters, uhh, uhh, I mean inserted mannequins.
Don'tcha see Michael?


Mein Gott
could it be finally, evidence of a sense of humour?

Whatcha think Adolf?

(http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/heil-hitler-gif-12.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 15, 2018, 09:05:05 PM
This simulation shows how the reflections change in Darnell with the door opening inwards. No such reflections are seen with the door opening outwards (toward the camera).  Also, the reflection is shown for PP advancing back near the corner towards the edge of the landing. Both Frazier and the man to his left are  near the front edge of the landing.


(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/7rCoM5UfJLPCM7YIxowf7INo2dkgcx2cxuN-sbOxqufuEmPRDpaDlemGu48t2dLp_Q0IF7rS-FEgusDxdhwH=w1440-h767)

James, why is Frazier's reflection such that he looks to be so close to the door?

(https://i.imgur.com/eVk1zIb.jpg)

Again, cf motorcycle cop's reflection:

(https://i.imgur.com/Qvs1yqq.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 15, 2018, 09:07:54 PM
It never fails - every single time I see Stancak's cartoon model with that leg down on the second step, I get a big kick out of it.  Figuratively speaking. That's his way of justifying how the 5-9 LHO appear much shorter up there. Hilarious!

And yet, if it's a *woman* up there - much shorter and there to see the president go by - why in the world would she be standing with one leg down, knowing she's short and would want both legs up there to peer over everyone else.

It's hilarious while also being fxxxing goofy too.

Michael, where exactly on the landing would you position Prayer Person if she's the shorter woman you suggest?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 15, 2018, 09:10:42 PM
It always seemed obvious too, that the person stood east of Frazier was hit partly by his shadow and yet now we see the shadow on "her" head alone puts this person again, closer to the camera than him.

The respective positions of Frazier and A.N.Other, and the implications of this for their relative heights, could be important in determining if A.N.Other might be Stanton...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 15, 2018, 09:30:46 PM

...'old school mindset'...


(https://i.imgur.com/RaVUWs6.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on July 15, 2018, 11:47:34 PM
James, why is Frazier's reflection such that he looks to be so close to the door?

(https://i.imgur.com/eVk1zIb.jpg)

Alan, Thank you for your response.

You ask an interesting question. However, there are two consequences of moving Frazier towards the doorway. The first, to my estimation, is moving 1 foot backwards will push Frazier deeper into the shadow of the lintel.

The second effect is that pushing him backwards 1 foot also requires him to also move about 4-5 inches westward to maintain the lineup of camera, Frazier and the aluminum vertical frame. This movement also results in the reflection moving westward ? too far in IMO.

An overlay with a Darnell frame with the doorway reflecting the bright sky shows that Frazier, and possibly his friend on his left, are standing near the front edge of the landing.

I don't have any comments on the policeman image as I have not studied it at this time.

Comments?
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/3MwocBqYI_ktCJ1h9C3zjbLdD60AFgPd6kOlM5sD_ljuxb2HPN9pdP9s4B7mgZrZmNrPNCIrvljgaA=w1440-h767)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 16, 2018, 12:41:17 AM
Being of a somewhat 'old school mindset', I do wonder, as I wander, if any posted reply quote has any verifiable authenticity requirement, as well as a complete statement, unaltered in any way requirement?

Any posted reply indicated as a comment quote with any portion omitted, and any deletion, as well as any rephrasing,  that tends to alter and/or redirect original context should not be posted as a 'quote', with omitted portions, and deletions, as well as rephrased or altered, unless specifically indicated as being altered, rephrased, and as well with having portion omissions, and/or deletions.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 16, 2018, 12:32:47 PM
Alan, Thank you for your response.

You ask an interesting question. However, there are two consequences of moving Frazier towards the doorway. The first, to my estimation, is moving 1 foot backwards will push Frazier deeper into the shadow of the lintel.

The second effect is that pushing him backwards 1 foot also requires him to also move about 4-5 inches westward to maintain the lineup of camera, Frazier and the aluminum vertical frame. This movement also results in the reflection moving westward ? too far in IMO.

An overlay with a Darnell frame with the doorway reflecting the bright sky shows that Frazier, and possibly his friend on his left, are standing near the front edge of the landing.

I don't have any comments on the policeman image as I have not studied it at this time.

Comments?
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/3MwocBqYI_ktCJ1h9C3zjbLdD60AFgPd6kOlM5sD_ljuxb2HPN9pdP9s4B7mgZrZmNrPNCIrvljgaA=w1440-h767)

Thanks, James.

It still seems counterintuitive to me that Frazier at such distance from the glass door would be casting a reflection positioned like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/eVk1zIb.jpg)

As a person moves forward even a short amount from the glass, the reflection will surely appear lower, in the way we see with the motorcycle officer here:

(https://i.imgur.com/vN7mXzf.jpg)

Are we 100% sure this reflection IS Frazier's?

(https://i.imgur.com/F1MuE7m.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 16, 2018, 09:12:37 PM
The Lovelady shadow:

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Back-Shadow.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 16, 2018, 09:40:23 PM
The Lovelady shadow:

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Back-Shadow.gif)

Where, Chris? I don't see it!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on July 16, 2018, 09:53:11 PM
Alan,
It took me almost 5 hours to simulate the Allen photo (which required using the full frame), that mostly involves placing and rotating the camera. It models nicely the reflections of the MC cop on the right, as well as part of the officer reflected in the door. The sun was modeled at 13:25.

I stand by my earlier work that those are indeed the reflections of Frazier and the person shown to his left (is that Molina)?

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/wooCcBjk6MGsmTaX_Jf4tG0EW9qtTuSjAKygIx-bI7bbsyF-o-2hb3OarCQur94qqDYlNoJbX14TU5Lk6i9U=w1440-h767-rw)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 16, 2018, 10:29:41 PM
Where, Chris? I don't see it!

I think Chris might be confusing something dark on the landing for shadow on the man's back, probably in the early frames of that gif before the cop's own shadow touches him.

I had an issue like that earlier. 
(https://i.imgur.com/AChyMC7.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 17, 2018, 12:24:39 PM
Alan,
It took me almost 5 hours to simulate the Allen photo (which required using the full frame), that mostly involves placing and rotating the camera. It models nicely the reflections of the MC cop on the right, as well as part of the officer reflected in the door. The sun was modeled at 13:25.

I stand by my earlier work that those are indeed the reflections of Frazier and the person shown to his left (is that Molina)?

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/wooCcBjk6MGsmTaX_Jf4tG0EW9qtTuSjAKygIx-bI7bbsyF-o-2hb3OarCQur94qqDYlNoJbX14TU5Lk6i9U=w1440-h767-rw)

Thanks, James!  Thumb1:

Not to nitpick, but I still can't for the life of me work out how the head of Frazier at the edge of the landing--------i.e. several feet forward from the glass--------could be casting a reflection this high and this far west:

(https://i.imgur.com/F1MuE7m.jpg)

Given Darnell's perspective, and Frazier's distance from the glass, I would have thought the reflection dotted in green would be a less unrealistic candidate for Frazier's reflection:

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

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 17, 2018, 12:25:25 PM
I think Chris might be confusing something dark on the landing for shadow on the man's back, probably in the early frames of that gif before the cop's own shadow touches him.

I had an issue like that earlier. 
(https://i.imgur.com/AChyMC7.jpg)

Spot on, Barry! No 'Lovelady shadow' Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 17, 2018, 07:16:46 PM
The Lovelady shadow:

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Back-Shadow.gif)

If short of shadow, maybe some extra shadow on the west side of the glass wall? Left there, maybe? Appears stationary, unlike presently seen PersonImages! Could it be, maybe, that it was left there by previously seen (somewhat tall) TallMaleImage, aka BWF?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 17, 2018, 07:33:16 PM
One step down.
Landing edge.
3ft back.
6ft back

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Steps_2.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 17, 2018, 07:37:59 PM
More Shadows:

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Stair.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on July 17, 2018, 07:52:36 PM
Thanks, James!  Thumb1:

Not to nitpick, but I still can't for the life of me work out how the head of Frazier at the edge of the landing--------i.e. several feet forward from the glass--------could be casting a reflection this high and this far west:

(https://i.imgur.com/F1MuE7m.jpg)

Given Darnell's perspective, and Frazier's distance from the glass, I would have thought the reflection dotted in green would be a less unrealistic candidate for Frazier's reflection:

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

Alan,
I present three animations from Darnell's POV, each with an individual moving eastward across the landing. The first moves the model 1 ft, the second 2 ft, and third 3 ft towards the landing. I hope this is useful for you. I will be happy to refine or modify at your request. I'm not sure I covered all your questions.

My opinion is that yes, a person further back, and somewhat behind Molina,  could be superimposed with Molina's reflection. But Molina's reflection is there for sure.

(https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ACOVvJFeOlJD-LD6iK1PJyf96VCMB0xj)
(https://drive.google.com/open?id=15liCjyyLLQ9VKpChXC0gLfR4wFPV9Rs3)
(https://drive.google.com/open?id=1M7HMy4ZSnWYQ5xjyWs8OLqQLQzkHoGyL)

edit re-formatted links
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 17, 2018, 08:26:18 PM
Alan,
I present three animations from Darnell's POV, each with an individual moving eastward across the landing. The first moves the model 1 ft, the second 2 ft, and third 3 ft towards the landing. I hope this is useful for you. I will be happy to refine or modify at your request. I'm not sure I covered all your questions.

My opinion is that yes, a person further back, and somewhat behind Molina,  could be superimposed with Molina's reflection. But Molina's reflection is there for sure.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ACOVvJFeOlJD-LD6iK1PJyf96VCMB0xj (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ACOVvJFeOlJD-LD6iK1PJyf96VCMB0xj)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=15liCjyyLLQ9VKpChXC0gLfR4wFPV9Rs3 (https://drive.google.com/open?id=15liCjyyLLQ9VKpChXC0gLfR4wFPV9Rs3)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1M7HMy4ZSnWYQ5xjyWs8OLqQLQzkHoGyL (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1M7HMy4ZSnWYQ5xjyWs8OLqQLQzkHoGyL)

James,

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/imgtag1.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on July 17, 2018, 09:24:08 PM
Ok, sorry Duncan. I did not understand that button worked for animated gifs too, or forgot.
p.s.
I just edited the links with the [img tag, but now don't see any links at all, whereas I did initially. I guess I wear my Newbie button with pride  >:(
Please forgive the test below.

 img tag
(https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ACOVvJFeOlJD-LD6iK1PJyf96VCMB0xj)

 url tag
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ACOVvJFeOlJD-LD6iK1PJyf96VCMB0xj (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ACOVvJFeOlJD-LD6iK1PJyf96VCMB0xj)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 17, 2018, 09:50:08 PM
Ok, sorry Duncan. I did not understand that button worked for animated gifs too, or forgot.
p.s.
I just edited the links with the [img tag, but now don't see any links at all, whereas I did initially. I guess I wear my Newbie button with pride  >:(
Please forgive the test below.

 img tag
(https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ACOVvJFeOlJD-LD6iK1PJyf96VCMB0xj)

 url tag
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ACOVvJFeOlJD-LD6iK1PJyf96VCMB0xj (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ACOVvJFeOlJD-LD6iK1PJyf96VCMB0xj)

No problem, James.

You are using the wrong link in between the images tags. You need to get the address of the image and place it between the image tags.

Test as much as you like. I can delete them later.



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 17, 2018, 09:56:04 PM
More Shadows:

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Stair.gif)

Shadows indeed, Chris, but all cast by people on the steps
-----------i.e. none of them remotely like the 'shadow' we see on Lovelady!

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 17, 2018, 10:02:02 PM
Alan,
I present three animations from Darnell's POV, each with an individual moving eastward across the landing. The first moves the model 1 ft, the second 2 ft, and third 3 ft towards the landing. I hope this is useful for you. I will be happy to refine or modify at your request. I'm not sure I covered all your questions.

My opinion is that yes, a person further back, and somewhat behind Molina,  could be superimposed with Molina's reflection. But Molina's reflection is there for sure.

(https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ACOVvJFeOlJD-LD6iK1PJyf96VCMB0xj)
(https://drive.google.com/open?id=15liCjyyLLQ9VKpChXC0gLfR4wFPV9Rs3)
(https://drive.google.com/open?id=1M7HMy4ZSnWYQ5xjyWs8OLqQLQzkHoGyL)

edit re-formatted links

These are super-helpful, James. The time and effort you have put in here, as elsewhere, are greatly appreciated!  Thumb1:

Returning to Frazier's reflection, I'm still troubled by the lack of distance between it and his head. On the simulation you posted a few pages back, the greater similarity of head-to-reflection relationship seems to be not with Frazier at edge of landing but with Frazier in deeper shadow from the lintel:

(https://i.imgur.com/r4OAsOK.gif)

And yet, you seem to have gotten the lintel shadow spot on.

Why the lack of distance between Frazier and his reflection in Darnell? It just seems off to me...

Something to do with blurring perhaps?  :-\

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 17, 2018, 10:07:58 PM
One step down.
Landing edge.
3ft back.
6ft back

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Steps_2.gif)

I still maintain that Prayer Man has his arms folded in Darnell
----------body faced forward!
----------his 'left forearm' NOT his left forearm but something BEHIND him that is moving independently of him!

(https://i.imgur.com/MJu87PP.gif)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 18, 2018, 12:04:29 AM
Shadows indeed, Chris, but all cast by people on the steps
-----------i.e. none of them remotely like the 'shadow' we see on Lovelady!


The hombre with no sombrero spills the beans.

Well, perhaps he does and just barely.
Also note gloved hand of traffic cop on door, is it partially shaded?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 18, 2018, 12:22:14 AM
Re: 3ft back and 6ft back.
Looks like a loss of about 6 inches for every 3ft, that sound fair?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on July 18, 2018, 12:36:11 AM
One step down.
Landing edge.
3ft back.
6ft back

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Steps_2.gif)



Is the dog supposed to be Frazier? Hehehe!

No but seriously I appreciate someone going to the trouble of attempting to recreate the evidence.

Even though Cinque tried and failed with Altgens 6, I would like to see a recreation of what you've done in Dealey Plaza with the camera in the original position and a 6 foot Frazier in his spot as verified by his reflection then compared to a 5'3" prayer person and another comparison with a 5'9" prayer person.



JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 18, 2018, 12:52:35 AM


Is the dog supposed to be Frazier? Hehehe!

No but seriously I appreciate someone going to the trouble of attempting to recreate the evidence.

Even though Cinque tried and failed with Altgens 6, I would like to see a recreation of what you've done in Dealey Plaza with the camera in the original position and a 6 foot Frazier in his spot as verified by his reflection then compared to a 5'3" prayer person and another comparison with a 5'9" prayer person.



JohnM

One step down!

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on July 18, 2018, 04:38:50 PM
These are super-helpful, James. The time and effort you have put in here, as elsewhere, are greatly appreciated!  Thumb1:

Returning to Frazier's reflection, I'm still troubled by the lack of distance between it and his head. On the simulation you posted a few pages back, the greater similarity of head-to-reflection relationship seems to be not with Frazier at edge of landing but with Frazier in deeper shadow from the lintel:

(https://i.imgur.com/r4OAsOK.gif)

And yet, you seem to have gotten the lintel shadow spot on.

Why the lack of distance between Frazier and his reflection in Darnell? It just seems off to me...

Something to do with blurring perhaps?  :-\

Alan,
I've misplaced my master for that GIF and redid one, this time using blue registration lines to distinguish from the earlier one. There could be a slight difference in the two as I had to remake it from scratch.

As to reasons for your noted difference I believe the major source could be due to how I generate the figure. My mannequins are basically cookie-cutter, with provisions for shoulder and elbow articulations for individual cases. What is available for individual cases (e.g. Frazier) is ability to scale the basic form in a way that makes the desired height. I can also change the width and breadth of the form. This I did for the Frazier stand-in by changing his width and breadth to 80% of normal ? to give the tall, lean look. Unfortunately,.that scale change also resized the Head. So we have a tall, lean model with a miniature head. For the next gif have changed his body form (and head) to normal proportions. This gives his head to reflection size more like we see in the Darnell frame. The animation displays the Darnell reference frame, then with Frazier at the landing, back 6? and west about 2? and back 12? and west 4-5?. To me, the landing and 6? back give results hard to distinguish, with 12? back seems to much for me. Of course, the blurring that is present in the source frames never help.

I will try the imgur.com link to see if it works here.

(https://i.imgur.com/L0N9fLE.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 18, 2018, 06:51:08 PM
What's casting the vertical shadow (arrow) on his neck?
What's casting the horizontal shadow (arrow) moving downward from his face?

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Vert-Hori.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 18, 2018, 08:21:46 PM
Shot from across the street and stepped off approx 80ft away.
I'm at the landing edge.
My wife is at the landing edge then 3ft back.
She is 70" tall, I am 72.5" tall.
I raised my heels up to gain approx 1 inch of height. The difference being approx 3.5 inches between us.

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Frazier_1.gif)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 19, 2018, 03:10:57 AM
What's casting the vertical shadow (arrow) on his neck?
What's casting the horizontal shadow (arrow) moving downward from his face?


Shadow only on his right side, while the left side of his neck is in direct sunlight along with his ear.
It's just his own head blocking his right side from the sun.
As that same man puts his head down the very tip top of his it's western side(perhaps) enters the shadow from the wall.
That's not too far from Wiegman's Lovelady. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 19, 2018, 03:32:36 AM
Chris, thanks again for the input would love to see more alternatives next time you're out and about.
Consider Alan's observation of the Frazier reflection too, it could put Buell back from the edge by at least 3'.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 19, 2018, 03:32:43 PM
Alan,
I've misplaced my master for that GIF and redid one, this time using blue registration lines to distinguish from the earlier one. There could be a slight difference in the two as I had to remake it from scratch.

As to reasons for your noted difference I believe the major source could be due to how I generate the figure. My mannequins are basically cookie-cutter, with provisions for shoulder and elbow articulations for individual cases. What is available for individual cases (e.g. Frazier) is ability to scale the basic form in a way that makes the desired height. I can also change the width and breadth of the form. This I did for the Frazier stand-in by changing his width and breadth to 80% of normal ? to give the tall, lean look. Unfortunately,.that scale change also resized the Head. So we have a tall, lean model with a miniature head. For the next gif have changed his body form (and head) to normal proportions. This gives his head to reflection size more like we see in the Darnell frame. The animation displays the Darnell reference frame, then with Frazier at the landing, back 6? and west about 2? and back 12? and west 4-5?. To me, the landing and 6? back give results hard to distinguish, with 12? back seems to much for me. Of course, the blurring that is present in the source frames never help.

I will try the imgur.com link to see if it works here.

(https://i.imgur.com/L0N9fLE.gif)

Brilliant, James, much food for thought here------------thank you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 19, 2018, 03:34:22 PM
Shadow only on his right side, while the left side of his neck is in direct sunlight along with his ear.
It's just his own head blocking his right side from the sun.
As that same man puts his head down the very tip top of his it's western side(perhaps) enters the shadow from the wall.
That's not too far from Wiegman's Lovelady.

Barry, do you mean not too far in location from Wiegman's Lovelady or not too far from what we see 'shadow'-wise on Lovelady?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 19, 2018, 03:40:58 PM

I concluded that there was nothing provably reliable to indicate PrayerPersonImage represented any male, which of course eliminated the viability of the LHO/PM Theory.

Non sequitur!!

A logical version of your sentence would read:

I concluded that there was nothing provably reliable to PROVE PrayerPersonImage represented any male, which of course, IF SAID CONCLUSION WERE INDEED SOUND, WOULD LEAVE the LHO/PM Theory AS YET UNPROVEN.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 19, 2018, 05:03:55 PM
How far back?

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/StairMatch.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 19, 2018, 06:27:32 PM
Non sequitur!!

A logical version of your sentence would read:

I concluded that there was nothing provably reliable to PROVE PrayerPersonImage represented any male, which of course, IF SAID CONCLUSION WERE INDEED SOUND, WOULD LEAVE the LHO/PM Theory AS YET UNPROVEN.

 Thumb1:

You want to talk about LOGIC? Does your LOGIC embrace the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory? If so, find someone capable of believing your LOGIC.

I see nothing logical about claiming, against all testimony, by multiple witnesses, and after one-half century, all of a sudden, a PersonImage, aka PrayerPersonImage, on the TSBD Bldg entrance landing represents accused LoneGunmanAssassin LHO, although said PPI is in shadow and unidentifiable without additional information as filmed, from a hand-held motion picture camera as the camera person rode in/on a moving convertible automobile in the motorcade some vehicles behind the limousine occupied by PresidentJohnKennedySr and MrsKennedy, as well as GovernorJohnConnallyJr and MrsConnally, during or just after the fatal shooting of JFK Sr, and critical wounding of JBC Jr.

Not only do I conclude there to be nothing provably reliable as proof, I maintain my conclusion that there is nothing provably reliable 'indicative' that PPI represents any male. Why would "soundness' be required to leave any theory unproven?

Your statement, IF SAID CONCLUSION WERE INDEED SOUND, WOULD LEAVE the LHO/PM Theory AS YET UNPROVEN", will NOT effect my conclusion that PrayerWomanImage quite likely represents MsSarahDeanStanton.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 19, 2018, 06:42:25 PM
How far back?

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/StairMatch.gif)

According to James and Andrej's respective simulations,
------------the lintel shadow puts Frazier front of landing.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZIIt5s5.jpg)

If James & Andrej are right (and they seem to be) Billy Lovelady cannot be on the landing in Wiegman or his face would be half-shaded. Lovelady, at 5'8.5", is NOT a full head smaller than Frazier at ~6'!:

(https://i.imgur.com/roh0gmA.jpg)

It would be outstanding if someone could produce a scaled Wiegman-to-Darnell gif so that we could make a height comparison of
UPPER LOVELADY (in Wiegman) & PRAYER MAN (in Darnell)!

i.e. something a bit more SOPHISTICATED than this crude effort of mine!

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

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 19, 2018, 08:23:20 PM
Scale four people on west side steps using the later Weigman frame.
Clone Lovelady from later frame onto earlier frame.
Align the face of PrayerPerson in Weigman/Darnell.
Use a digital densitometer to measure Prayerperson's forehead/right forearm in early Weigman frame.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/PrayermanFBI3.gif)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 19, 2018, 08:33:01 PM
Scale four people on west side steps using the later Weigman frame.
Clone Lovelady from later frame onto earlier frame.
Align the face of PrayerPerson in Weigman/Darnell.
Use a digital densitometer to measure Prayerperson's forehead/right forearm in early Weigman frame.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/PrayermanFBI3.gif)

Cloned Lovelady is too high in Darnell, Chris-----compare heights of glass doorway's vertical aluminium strip!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 19, 2018, 09:23:39 PM
I see nothing logical about claiming, against all testimony, by multiple witnesses, and after one-half century, all of a sudden, a PersonImage, aka PrayerPersonImage, on the TSBD Bldg entrance landing represents accused LoneGunmanAssassin LHO, although said PPI is in shadow and unidentifiable without additional information as filmed, from a hand-held motion picture camera as the camera person rode in/on a moving convertible automobile in the motorcade some vehicles behind the limousine occupied by PresidentJohnKennedySr and MrsKennedy, as well as GovernorJohnConnallyJr and MrsConnally, during or just after the fatal shooting of JFK Sr, and critical wounding of JBC Jr.

Larry, why do you smush people's names together?  Also, why do you change your font type, size, color with every post?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Logan on July 19, 2018, 09:30:17 PM
Larry, why do you smush people's names together?  Also, why do you change your font type, size, color with every post?

Obviously you didn't get the memo on the "What font is next" pool we have going. I got stuck with Old Times Roman.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 19, 2018, 10:49:05 PM
Watch the black worker going up the center of the steps and into the building. As soon as he attains full height on the landing, the lintel shadow starts to swallow his head up:

(https://i.imgur.com/HlcsKGy.gif)

No way can Billy Lovelady, 20 minutes earlier, be standing up on the landing and keeping all of his face in sunlight!

He's one step down in Altgens and earlier Wiegman, two steps down in later Wiegman:

(https://i.imgur.com/rb9Fgxo.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 19, 2018, 11:25:04 PM
RE: How far back?
Traffic cop has his white gloved hand on door, earlier CNN source of same scene confirms it, tells me something but not sure if it helps.

Also that cop ushering in people in the Hughes clip, shows the shadow changing on him without him moving his feet.
Standing on very edge of landing and leaning head forward alone could have kept Lovelady or Shelley, free of lintel's shadow, again look how it moves on the cop as he leans.
Saying that I still have an easier time seeing BL on step.

Alan, can you see the man's head perhaps dip into the shadow? That area of his head wouldn't be that far from BL's darkside IMHO.
Closest thing I've seen to evidence of shadow there to date.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 19, 2018, 11:54:20 PM
Move Lovelady further west from the center railing.
Compare to gentleman on west side of center railing.
First frame, one step down from landing.
Last frame on landing.

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Dividing-Line.gif)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 20, 2018, 12:07:07 AM

...and after one-half century, all of a sudden...

What does this even mean?
Is there some time limit now on when one can make new discoveries in this case and anything found after that breaks some kind credibility factor?
New or improved footage/stills come along and you're ignoring it and any observations that spring from it?
50 years later?
40 years later?
30 years later?
When was the cut off? We missed it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 20, 2018, 12:15:48 AM
^ I think, realizing that "Ruth Dean" was west of the central rail and not east of it makes a big difference, I can now see what Chris is getting at much easier.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 20, 2018, 12:47:59 AM
Move Lovelady further west from the center railing.
Compare to gentleman on west side of center railing.
First frame, one step down from landing.
Last frame on landing.

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Dividing-Line.gif)

Neither of these is a shadow-----it's the momentarily dark background (one step down) + the fact that the man's body is angled sideways to camera. The only shadow is when the cop behind him comes up close.

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Back-Shadow.gif)

The matter is very simple: the position of the sun in the sky makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a shadow to explain the dark vertical strip on Lovelady in all the Wiegman frames. And there is NO human body in Lovelady's vicinity to cast a shadow, vertical or otherwise, down his side!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 20, 2018, 12:52:17 AM
RE: How far back?
Traffic cop has his white gloved hand on door, earlier CNN source of same scene confirms it, tells me something but not sure if it helps.

Not sure this means much, Barry. The door opens out quite deep into the landing--------and the white gloved hand is low enough to catch direct sunlight. Or am I missing something?

Quote
Also that cop ushering in people in the Hughes clip, shows the shadow changing on him without him moving his feet.

The Martin frames are much clearer on this point: at all times some of his head is in shadow!

Quote
Standing on very edge of landing and leaning head forward alone could have kept Lovelady or Shelley, free of lintel's shadow, again look how it moves on the cop as he leans.
Saying that I still have an easier time seeing BL on step.

I honestly don't think it's possible for Lovelady to be on the landing.

Quote
Alan, can you see the man's head perhaps dip into the shadow? That area of his head wouldn't be that far from BL's darkside IMHO.
Closest thing I've seen to evidence of shadow there to date.

All I'm seeing, Barry, is that the shadow hits his head as soon as both legs have straightened up on the landing. Completely different to what we see with 'Upper Lovelady'!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 20, 2018, 12:58:23 AM
What does this even mean?
Is there some time limit now on when one can make new discoveries in this case and anything found after that breaks some kind credibility factor?
New or improved footage/stills come along and you're ignoring it and any observations that spring from it?
50 years later?
40 years later?
30 years later?
When was the cut off? We missed it.

It's ASTONISHING how much irrational hostility the LHO/PM claim arouses in some people. You almost get the impression some people--------and not just LNers------want to close down any possibility of this case being solved!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 20, 2018, 01:10:40 AM
Alan,
the hand on the door and the man on the landing who's shadow Chris was interested in are about 3 quarters of door's width away from each other, perhaps.

...
All I'm seeing, Barry, is that the shadow hits his head as soon as both legs have straightened up on the landing. Completely different to what we see with 'Upper Lovelady'!

We must have crossed wires somewhere Alan because the guy I'm talking about never reaches the landing.
Behind the cop with hand on door in the closer scene, Chris saw shadow only on right side of head, I'm saying when he lowers his head he gets caught, just the very top of it on the left.
 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 20, 2018, 01:19:51 AM
We must have crossed wires somewhere Alan because the guy I'm talking about never reaches the landing.
Behind the cop with hand on door in the closer scene, Chris saw shadow only on right side of head, I'm saying when he lowers his head he gets caught, just the very top of it on the left.
 

Mea culpa, Barry!
Do you mean this guy?
(https://i.imgur.com/nH2qzzM.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 20, 2018, 02:06:19 AM
Np of course Alan, yes that be him :)
In the other footage though, not CNN, top of his skull goes dark?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 20, 2018, 02:15:08 AM
Np of course Alan, yes that be him   :)

 Thumb1:

Quote
In the other footage though, not CNN, top of his skull goes dark?

This footage (disregarding red frame)?

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/StairMatch.gif)

I don't see any shadow tbh, just dark hair?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 20, 2018, 02:31:45 AM
Minor trivia.
That checked looking suit marks that closer footage as Sanderson's IIRC.
(https://i.imgur.com/yEaw8u0.jpg)


^
Yes that's it Alan, guy with no hat on left, I see his head entering the darkness but I could be wrong, might be hair product but it's close to the magic zone.






Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 20, 2018, 03:10:44 AM
Neither of these is a shadow-----it's the momentarily dark background (one step down) + the fact that the man's body is angled sideways to camera. The only shadow is when the cop behind him comes up close.

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Back-Shadow.gif)

The matter is very simple: the position of the sun in the sky makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a shadow to explain the dark vertical strip on Lovelady in all the Wiegman frames. And there is NO human body in Lovelady's vicinity to cast a shadow, vertical or otherwise, down his side!


Point being made:
The man traversed by the "momentarily dark background" has no shadow cast upon his head, while he is one step down and after he steps up on the landing.
If he turns and faces the camera as Lovelady is, there will not be a shadow across the front of his face either.
 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 20, 2018, 06:27:04 AM
It's ASTONISHING how much irrational hostility the LHO/PM claim arouses in some people. You almost get the impression some people--------and not just LNers------want to close down any possibility of this case being solved!


What is MOST ASTONISHING is the hostility directed towards those who dispute any LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerMan Theory.

So, "you almost get the impression some people-------and not just LNers-------want to close down any possibility of this case being solved!" means what?

Certainly, claiming the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter to be a 'Hoax', and moving LHO away from said encounter to place him on the landing/stairs during the assassination will not address 'this case being solved'.

Based on my understanding of the evidence, the LHO/PM Theory, in my conclusion is indicative of a Hoax.


In any event, should there be any legally binding reliable provable statement/testimony with evidentiary value, it should be available among the linked to witnesses account of the assassination and situational event(s).


WarrenCommissionTESTIMONY-MrBonnieWilliams:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/williams.htm
WarrenCommissionTESTIMONY-MrBuellFrazier:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
WarrenCommissionTESTIMONY-JamesJarmanJr:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/jarman.htm
FederalBureauOfInvestigationTESTIMONY-MsPaulineSanders on 11/24/'63:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm
WarrenCommissionTESTIMONY-MrsRobert[Jeraldean]Reid:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/reid.htm
WarrenCommissionTESTIMONY-MrBillyLovelady on 04/07/'64:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
WarrenCommissionTESTIMONY-DPD OfficerMrMarrionBaker:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
WarrenCommissionTESTIMONY-TSBD ManagerMrRoyTruly:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
WarrenCommissionTESTIMONY-MrDannyArce on 04/07/'64:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arce.htm


 Should additional TESTIMONY and/or STATEMENT(S) be sought-should be available@:
https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 20, 2018, 06:32:25 PM
No correspondance via any communication method will be entered into regarding any Admin actions.

Name calling, petty false allegations and personal insults towards fellow members of this Forum, when reported or observed, may carry (a to be determined on an individual basis) ban from posting on the Forum.
This includes posts which contain member directed mocking nicknames towards other members.
Posts containing the offences may be deleted, as may complete threads, where the thread has been created by the offender.
Posts containing links to websites which condone and allow the publication of abusive content will be deleted.
Messy untidy posts, or posts containing unacceptably large white space gaps between lines, when reported or observed, will be deleted.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 21, 2018, 02:44:36 AM
Larry, why do you smush people's names together?  Also, why do you change your font type, size, color with every post?
IN REPLY...
John, I don't consider it to be smushing people's names together, as to me a systematic style of avoiding spacing between 'some' names' lettering.
Font type is a form of expression, as is size, and style related due to preference. Somewhat systematic, overall. Font color, is mostly preference, sometimes style related, and hopefully unique to some degree.
However, I also consider it all as a style, overall, which itself is systematic. Therefor, should a post be quoted, and instead of a reprint, a reproduced comment is posted with context altering adjustments, to appear authentic will not be an easy task. And, being difficult to disguise, said adjustments should be fairly easy to discover, and expose.
So, you asked, and I answered.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 21, 2018, 02:49:49 AM
IN REPLY to POST #1449...
John, I don't consider it to be smushing people's names together, as to me a systematic style of avoiding spacing between 'some' names' lettering.

For what purpose though?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on July 21, 2018, 02:56:22 AM
For what purpose though?



Who really cares, it's his style and it saves space and bandwidth, good luck to him!



JohnM


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 21, 2018, 03:14:00 AM
IN REPLY to POST #1449...
John, I don't consider it to be smushing people's names together, as to me a systematic style of avoiding spacing between 'some' names' lettering.
Font type is a form of expression, as is size, and style related due to preference. Somewhat systematic, overall. Font color, is mostly preference, sometimes style related, and hopefully unique to some degree.
However, I also consider it all as a style, overall, which itself is systematic. Therefor, should a post be quoted, and instead of a reprint, a reproduced comment is posted with context altering adjustments, to appear authentic will not be an easy task. And, being difficult to disguise, said adjustments should be fairly easy to discover, and expose.
So, you asked, and I answered.

Your format encourages a fly-by.
Buh-bye.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 21, 2018, 01:31:18 PM
Scale four people on west side steps using the later Weigman frame.
Clone Lovelady from later frame onto earlier frame.
Align the face of PrayerPerson in Weigman/Darnell.
Use a digital densitometer to measure Prayerperson's forehead/right forearm in early Weigman frame.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/PrayermanFBI3.gif)

Chris, one cannot take the Prayer Man figure as a constant from Wiegman to Darnell. When the glass doors' horizontal aluminum strip is kept at constant height, we get this:

(https://i.imgur.com/av3DCbi.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 21, 2018, 03:47:16 PM
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Back-Shadow.gif)
Point being made:
The man traversed by the "momentarily dark background" has no shadow cast upon his head, while he is one step down and after he steps up on the landing.
If he turns and faces the camera as Lovelady is, there will not be a shadow across the front of his face either.
 

Thanks for clarifying Chris. Thumb1:
How do we know there's no shadow cast upon the upper half of his head when he's on the landing? Looks like shadow to me. Compare shadow that comes over the head of the (rifle-carrying?) man on the east side who steps up on the landing just after him.
What troubles me more tbh is the fact that in the initial frames the cowboy hat in center is in direct sunlight. Is this man short enough, and lowering his head enough, to miss the lintel shadow?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 21, 2018, 06:50:39 PM
IIRC, it was long ago asserted, but never proven, that CarlJonesImage was waving, and/or had an arm raised in Altgens6 Photograph. And, I have to conclude there is still no provable evidence for said assertion. The material pattern of the long sleeve shirt as seen being worn on BillyLoveladyImage, matches the arm and torso. It does not match the material pattern of the long sleeve shirt as seen being worn by CarlJonesImage.

It also continues to be my conclusion that BillyLoveladyImage is near, and likely holding onto, the then center placed handrail, as Altgens6 Photograph was made. However, the primary object being photographed, from the front, was the LincolnLimousine carrying PresidentKennedy with wife Jackie, as well as GovernorConnally with wife Nellie, and the SSA driver and SSA co-driver. And, the TSBD entrance portal is in the background some distance back of/from the limousine.

When considering the portal area distance, camera angle, as well as the fact that it is photographic background, I have to conclude the evidentiary value is reduced, and additional image information, and/or testimony is needed for reliable provable corroboration.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on July 21, 2018, 08:40:47 PM
Oh dear, just about everything here is wrong! These loose claims are what happens when 'research' is done without recourse to actual images :(

1. We can't see Lovelady's left arm in Altgens---what you are continuing to mistake as his left arm is in fact the RAISED arm of a spectator out front.
(https://i.imgur.com/S5uVXTe.jpg)

2. Unless you were on the steps yourself at 12.30pm on Nov. 22nd 1963, you can't possibly know the effect of Lovelady's alleged lean on his height----any possible shortening effect caused by a slight leftwards lean might easily be more than cancelled out by his stretching up/standing on tiptoe in order to see what the hell is happening further down Elm. I mean, does this really look to you like a man standing at well under his normal height?
(https://i.imgur.com/8k5TOt5.jpg)

3. As James Hackerott has demonstrated, Shelley is appreciably shorter than Lovelady (5'6" vs. 5'8.5"):
(https://i.imgur.com/DHQQ8R5.gif)
You tell us that Lovelady is on the landing. Yet Altgens shows Lovelady appreciably shorter than 'Shelley', even with 'Shelley' a bit further back on the landing:
(https://i.imgur.com/u6mx1aj.jpg)
Explain, please----------with images!

There are low chances that what you marked in RED is "RAISED arm of a spectator out front". Which spectator exactly do you think?
Carl Edward Jones was in front but he was wearing bright suit, could not be his hand.
(https://i.imgur.com/S5uVXTe.jpg)

Here you see Carl Edward Jones.
(https://i.imgur.com/8k5TOt5.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 21, 2018, 08:50:27 PM
There are low chances that what you marked in RED is "RAISED arm of a spectator out front". Which spectator exactly do you think?
Carl Edward Jones was in front but he was wearing bright suit, could not be his hand.
(https://i.imgur.com/S5uVXTe.jpg)

Here you see Carl Edward Jones.
(https://i.imgur.com/8k5TOt5.jpg)

It is NOT Carl Edward Jones's raised arm, it belongs to someone dark complected further down Elm (and well out of shot in the Wiegman doorway frames):

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

Don't believe something so far away from Lovelady could look so near him? Check out this demonstration of how Altgens' zoom lens creates counter-intuitive perspective effects!

(https://i.imgur.com/od8evR3.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on July 21, 2018, 09:05:15 PM
It is NOT Carl Edward Jones's raised arm, it belongs to someone dark complected further down Elm (and well out of shot in the Wiegman doorway frames):

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

Don't believe something so far away from Lovelady could look so near him? Check out this demonstration of how Altgens' zoom lens creates counter-intuitive perspective effects!

(https://i.imgur.com/od8evR3.jpg)

I understand your point but you have to narrow the number of persons whose hand it might be. Three black ladies seen in Altgens 6, all were wearing bright dresses and there are low chances this to be hand one of them. Also, limo already passed by them so check the second photo how they are waving almost horizontally towards the limo.
If what you marked in red is really a waving hand this person was standing between three black ladies and Carl Edward Jones, closer to Jones and this person was waving to LBJ?
(https://s26.postimg.cc/8sghrnvih/AP6311220989cropcolorized_-_Copy_-_Copy_zps3z0fd0fd.jpg)
(https://s26.postimg.cc/3tszd5uah/AP6311220989cropcolorized_-_Copy_-_Copy_2_zpssm2jzrzd.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 21, 2018, 09:16:41 PM
I understand your point but you have to narrow the number of persons whose hand it might be. Three black ladies seen in Altgens 6, all were wearing bright dresses and there are low chances this to be hand one of them. Also, limo already passed by them so check the second photo how they are waving almost horizontally towards the limo.
If what you marked in red is really a waving hand this person was standing between three black ladies and Carl Edward Jones, closer to Jones and this person was waving to LBJ?
(https://s26.postimg.cc/8sghrnvih/AP6311220989cropcolorized_-_Copy_-_Copy_zps3z0fd0fd.jpg)
(https://s26.postimg.cc/3tszd5uah/AP6311220989cropcolorized_-_Copy_-_Copy_2_zpssm2jzrzd.jpg)

The Towner film gives a good sense of the crowd in the relevant area, Patrick, though we're unlikely to find the actual raised hand due to the fact that Towner is not focused on that area at the time of Altgens.

And yes, waving to LBJ (or someone else in the parade). Some people's attention followed JFK and Jackie after they'd passed, some others' went to whoever was passing next.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on July 21, 2018, 09:28:09 PM
The Towner film gives a good sense of the crowd in the relevant area, Patrick, though we're unlikely to find the actual raised hand due to the fact that Towner is not focused on that area at the time of Altgens.

And yes, waving to LBJ (or someone else in the parade). Some people's attention followed JFK and Jackie after they'd passed, some others' went to whoever was passing next.

All true but that hand still missing fingers. If that was a hand, we should see fingers or palm even if the person was black due to a strong Sun reflection.

In any case, wishing not to steal the topic, I think you are wrong. What you mark in RED is nothing else than left hand, I think Oswald left hand, others think it is Lovelady but low chances it is any other person hand.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on July 22, 2018, 11:23:06 AM
And I'll take this as confirmation that your continued refusal to post images-----or to offer a technical reason why you 'can't'------stems from your fear of having your absurd claims subjected to close scrutiny.  Thumb1:

By the way, Brian, Prayer Person is still not a woman. A sharp eye will detect a male receding hairline and side part of the hair.

Unfortunately, Allen, it's not Oswald neither. It doesn't make sense or goes against any logic that it'd be him up there, roaming around seconds after the car speeds away and in full view of cameras. After the planners had greased the screw for the past 6 months setting him up to be the patsy.

Remember, he's supposed to be up there by then jamming the gun between the boxes and making his great 4-story escape just in time to be found sipping a Coca-Cola (or Dr Pepper).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 22, 2018, 11:40:42 AM
Unfortunately, Allen, it's not Oswald neither. It doesn't make sense or goes against any logic that it'd be him up there, roaming around seconds after the car speeds away and in full view of cameras. After the planners had greased the screw for the past 6 months setting him up to be the patsy.

Remember, he's supposed to be up there by then jamming the gun between the boxes and making his great 4-story escape just in time to be found sipping a Coca-Cola (or Dr Pepper).

Michael, you've offered this weak argument several times already, and I've addressed it several times already. Why do you keep refusing to engage with my counter-argument?

For the----------what?----------fourth time:

We don't know that LHO was being set up, by those behind the assassination, as a lone nut shooter, or even as a shooter. They may have just wanted to set him up as an accomplice. If so, then the carcano will have taken care of that.

To fail to distinguish between the assassination conspiracy and the post-assassination cover-up is an elementary error.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 22, 2018, 11:55:07 AM
All true but that hand still missing fingers. If that was a hand, we should see fingers or palm even if the person was black due to a strong Sun reflection.

In any case, wishing not to steal the topic, I think you are wrong. What you mark in RED is nothing else than left hand, I think Oswald left hand, others think it is Lovelady but low chances it is any other person hand.

Zero chance that the man in the doorway in Altgens is LHO, Patrick. It's Lovelady. BUT! I believe that the FBI knew full well from LHO's first interrogation that LHO had been in the doorway at that time and were quite panicked by the Altgens photo.

Walter Cronkite showed the people of America the Altgens photo on live TV the evening of the assassination:

(https://i.imgur.com/wTbFwoH.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on July 22, 2018, 11:59:18 AM
Michael, you've offered this weak argument several times already, and I've addressed it several times already. Why do you keep refusing to engage with my counter-argument?

For the----------what?----------fourth time:

We don't know that LHO was being set up, by those behind the assassination, as a lone nut shooter, or even as a shooter. They may have just wanted to set him up as an accomplice. If so, then the carcano will have taken care of that.

To fail to distinguish between the assassination conspiracy and the post-assassination cover-up is an elementary error.

Try as you might, you cannot separate the two, Allen.  That doesn't make sense either.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 22, 2018, 12:05:23 PM
Try as you might, you cannot separate the two, Allen.  That doesn't make sense either.

Why not?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on July 22, 2018, 01:28:29 PM
Why not?

Like a lot of CTers, Alan, try not to overthink the "conspiracy."  It didn't take ridiculous theories like squirreling away the body mid-drive to Love, throwing the body down into the cargo hold, squireling it away at Andrews in full view of live TV cameras and the family, and altering it...for what reason?

It didn't take faking the Z film and then ("Oh, by the way") altering the Nix film, and then the Muchmore film, and all the rest. It didn't take having an assassination HQ down in the basement of Ruby's nightclub (an actual "theory" by someone posted on the Ed Forum).

And, for the love of god, it didn't take finding an Oswald clone off the streets of Hungary 13 years before 11/22 - and a clone of Oswald's Mom no less - to groom him and live in the real Oswald's shadow as a young boy until 11/22.

Narrow it down to the bare essentials and it makes a whole lot more sense than all the rest of the mumbo jumbo. Read Bill Simpich's State Secret - there, you'll find that Oswald was not just some innocent dock worker like the WC wants him to be. As Simpich says, Oswald was a "spy in his own mind" but was little more than a low-level intel guy who could be easily led around, probably with promises of something more down the road. He could easily be moved into the TSDB building when it was decided that the shooting was going to take place there.

Meanwhile, if they knew then he was going to be the patsy, then the wheels turned to get it ready - faked backyard photos (Oswald himself said they were faked), getting him to hand out pro Commie literature in NO and all the rest. They even got him to say things along those lines on TV in NO. Watch that film clip - it's not hard to see he's play-acting his role.

On 11/22 they probably told him to stand by the phone for an important phone call. Did he know this was all going to go down? It's hard to say but they knew he could be relied on to do what he was told. It makes absolutely no sense for him to be up on those steps during the actual assassination - it would have destroyed the entire charade of "Crazy Lee shooting the president."

Was he supposed to be gunned down at the TSBD? Probably not because 15 minutes after the shooting, a description of his *original* marked description from his false defection (read State Secret) was announced on the radio. Meanwhile, he casually takes his slow ride to Oak Cliff, all the while JDT is gunned down, marking him even more as a madman.

The key to the plot is his "I'm a patsy" statement.  He obviously broke character and blurted that out.  Think about it for a minute.  My Dad was also an "order filler" and "dock worker" for most of his life.  But I can guarantee you that he, and many others did not know what that word meant. Oswald did and he was no dummy - his wheels had obviously started spinning at this point when he said that - "OMG I see what's happening now." He had a lot of time to think about what had been going on before was murdered on Sunday.

Of course the WC wanted him to be like Tim McVeigh years later - a genuine angry "lone nut" who defiantly blew up the Fed building. Which leads me to the idea that Oswald was not quite as innocent as we think.  IMO I think he knew *something* was going to go down on Elm Street - how much he knew was probably kept from him and we'll never know. But because LHO was not stupid - he was after all, trained at the intel base in Japan and prepped for his fake defection to Russia - he couldn't possibly have been kept 100% in the dark about 11/22.

So you see, Alan, you DO have to tie everything together in the pre and post assassination planning in order to make sense of it all.  You can't cherry pick just to try to explain something that makes no sense - in this case being it's just *gotta be Oswald up on the steps there*.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 22, 2018, 01:49:46 PM
Like a lot of CTers, Alan, try not to overthink the "conspiracy."  It didn't take ridiculous theories like squirreling away the body mid-drive to Love, throwing the body down into the cargo hold, squireling it away at Andrews in full view of live TV cameras and the family, and altering it...for what reason?

Agreed! Thumb1:

Quote
It didn't take faking the Z film and then ("Oh, by the way") altering the Nix film, and then the Muchmore film, and all the rest. It didn't take having an assassination HQ down in the basement of Ruby's nightclub (an actual "theory" by someone posted on the Ed Forum).

Agreed!  Thumb1:

Quote
And, for the love of god, it didn't take finding an Oswald clone off the streets of Hungary 13 years before 11/22 - and a clone of Oswald's Mom no less - to groom him and live in the real Oswald's shadow as a young boy until 11/22.

Agreed!  Thumb1:

Quote
Narrow it down to the bare essentials and it makes a whole lot more sense than all the rest of the mumbo jumbo. Read Bill Simpich's State Secret - there, you'll find that Oswald was not just some innocent dock worker like the WC wants him to be. As Simpich says, Oswald was a "spy in his own mind" but was little more than a low-level intel guy who could be easily led around, probably with promises of something more down the road. He could easily be moved into the TSDB building when it was decided that the shooting was going to take place there.

Agreed!  Thumb1:

Quote
Meanwhile, if they knew then he was going to be the patsy, then the wheels turned to get it ready - faked backyard photos (Oswald himself said they were faked), getting him to hand out pro Commie literature in NO and all the rest. They even got him to say things along those lines on TV in NO. Watch that film clip - it's not hard to see he's play-acting his role.

Agreed----BUT why assume there is only one conceivable kind of 'patsy' here? LHO may have been set up as an accomplice, not as an actual shooter.

Quote
On 11/22 they probably told him to stand by the phone for an important phone call.

Probably? Hardly. This is pure speculation!

Quote
Did he know this was all going to go down? It's hard to say but they knew he could be relied on to do what he was told. It makes absolutely no sense for him to be up on those steps during the actual assassination - it would have destroyed the entire charade of "Crazy Lee shooting the president."

The entire charade of "Crazy Lee shooting the president" was an invention of the 'investigators' and the Warren Commission, not of the conspirators. All the latter needed was "Commie Lee tied to president's shooting". Earl Warren believed he was helping prevent WWIII!

I return to my original point, Michael----PM=LHO is only a problem to those wedded to the view that either
-----------'The Warren Commission got it right'  :D
or
-----------'The only kind of patsy LHO could conceivably have been is a Lone Nut Gunman patsy'.

Neither of these views is rational.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on July 22, 2018, 02:05:33 PM

The entire charade of "Crazy Lee shooting the president" was an invention of the 'investigators' and the Warren Commission, not of the conspirators. All the latter needed was "Commie Lee tied to president's shooting". Earl Warren believed he was helping prevent WWIII!


Wrong, Alan. The WWIII scenario was part of the plan to *force* the investigators - from Hoover on down - to back off and switch to the "crazy Commie did it" reasoning behind the murder.  The *planners* knew that if they tried to make it appear that Castro was behind the plots, it'd give them the excuse to invade Cuba.

When Hoover and LBJ understood this, and didn't want to have millions of deaths and the destruction of the world in front of them, they watered it all down to Crazy Commie did it and that was the end of it. It's the same scenario that the CIA planners had in mind for the BOP - they told Kennedy it would work; when it didn't, they then went back to him and told him he needed to send in the troops to complete it.  When he shockingly refused, we know what happened.

Again, you're greatly overthinking this - to think that Hoover and all of the rest added in the WWIII scenario poor analyzing.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 22, 2018, 02:15:11 PM
Wrong, Alan. The WWIII scenario was part of the plan to *force* the investigators - from Hoover on down - to back off and switch to the "crazy Commie did it" reasoning behind the murder.  The *planners* knew that if they tried to make it appear that Castro was behind the plots, it'd give them the excuse to invade Cuba.

When Hoover and LBJ understood this, and didn't want to have millions of deaths and the destruction of the world in front of them, they watered it all down to Crazy Commie did it and that was the end of it. It's the same scenario that the CIA planners had in mind for the BOP - they told Kennedy it would work; when it didn't, they then went back to him and told him he needed to send in the troops to complete it.  When he shockingly refused, we know what happened.

Again, you're greatly overthinking this - to think that Hoover and all of the rest added in the WWIII scenario poor analyzing.

I'm afraid you're underthinking this, Michael. You have failed----in fact, you haven't even tried----to explain why LHO-as-Lone-Nut-Gunman is the only narrative the conspirators could possibly have wanted to push.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 22, 2018, 09:19:21 PM
Like a lot of CTers, Alan, try not to overthink the "conspiracy."  It didn't take ridiculous theories like squirreling away the body mid-drive to Love, throwing the body down into the cargo hold, squireling it away at Andrews in full view of live TV cameras and the family, and altering it...for what reason?

It didn't take faking the Z film and then ("Oh, by the way") altering the Nix film, and then the Muchmore film, and all the rest. It didn't take having an assassination HQ down in the basement of Ruby's nightclub (an actual "theory" by someone posted on the Ed Forum).

And, for the love of god, it didn't take finding an Oswald clone off the streets of Hungary 13 years before 11/22 - and a clone of Oswald's Mom no less - to groom him and live in the real Oswald's shadow as a young boy until 11/22.

Narrow it down to the bare essentials and it makes a whole lot more sense than all the rest of the mumbo jumbo. Read Bill Simpich's State Secret - there, you'll find that Oswald was not just some innocent dock worker like the WC wants him to be. As Simpich says, Oswald was a "spy in his own mind" but was little more than a low-level intel guy who could be easily led around, probably with promises of something more down the road. He could easily be moved into the TSDB building when it was decided that the shooting was going to take place there.

Meanwhile, if they knew then he was going to be the patsy, then the wheels turned to get it ready - faked backyard photos (Oswald himself said they were faked), getting him to hand out pro Commie literature in NO and all the rest. They even got him to say things along those lines on TV in NO. Watch that film clip - it's not hard to see he's play-acting his role.

On 11/22 they probably told him to stand by the phone for an important phone call. Did he know this was all going to go down? It's hard to say but they knew he could be relied on to do what he was told. It makes absolutely no sense for him to be up on those steps during the actual assassination - it would have destroyed the entire charade of "Crazy Lee shooting the president."

Was he supposed to be gunned down at the TSBD? Probably not because 15 minutes after the shooting, a description of his *original* marked description from his false defection (read State Secret) was announced on the radio. Meanwhile, he casually takes his slow ride to Oak Cliff, all the while JDT is gunned down, marking him even more as a madman.

The key to the plot is his "I'm a patsy" statement.  He obviously broke character and blurted that out.  Think about it for a minute.  My Dad was also an "order filler" and "dock worker" for most of his life.  But I can guarantee you that he, and many others did not know what that word meant. Oswald did and he was no dummy - his wheels had obviously started spinning at this point when he said that - "OMG I see what's happening now." He had a lot of time to think about what had been going on before was murdered on Sunday.

Of course the WC wanted him to be like Tim McVeigh years later - a genuine angry "lone nut" who defiantly blew up the Fed building. Which leads me to the idea that Oswald was not quite as innocent as we think.  IMO I think he knew *something* was going to go down on Elm Street - how much he knew was probably kept from him and we'll never know. But because LHO was not stupid - he was after all, trained at the intel base in Japan and prepped for his fake defection to Russia - he couldn't possibly have been kept 100% in the dark about 11/22.

So you see, Alan, you DO have to tie everything together in the pre and post assassination planning in order to make sense of it all.  You can't cherry pick just to try to explain something that makes no sense - in this case being it's just *gotta be Oswald up on the steps there*.

Michael, do you ever wonder what is proven by the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory becoming an acceptable scenario? To be granted a pardon maybe? He was never tried and convicted as a LoneGunmanAssassin in the PresidentJohnKennedySr Assassination, or as a shooter in the PoliceOfficerJD Tippet Murder, so as I understand it, no pardon can be available.

In any event, I have to conclude the LHO/PM Theory to be forever nonprovable. And, I maintain my conclusion as well that the LHO/LGA theory is just that, a theory, and one that remains unproven.

However, I have to conclude that too many coincidences are involved for a LHO non-connection to the assassination and/or situational event(s), although I also conclude any connections to be indirect, and possibly unwilling, but any 'escape' from involvement had to be quite possibly very limited.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on July 22, 2018, 11:05:38 PM
I'm afraid you're underthinking this, Michael. You have failed----in fact, you haven't even tried----to explain why LHO-as-Lone-Nut-Gunman is the only narrative the conspirators could possibly have wanted to push.

Alan, I just described the alternative - the "Castro did it and let's start WWIII" scenario. And when LBJ Hoover and other powers that be didn't want to start WWIII, then they went to the next scenario - the "crazy Commie lone nut" did it.

Otherwise, there really wasn't any need to create a second, third, and fourth scenario or plot.  They had their perfect patsy, someone who could be subtly led around making him think he was doing some kind of intel work, all the while putting him in place to take the fall. They had it all worked out and this is why the kill zone was actually overdone - they left no chances, which means they had shooters all around Dealey. They wanted to make sure 100% that he was going to be dead by the time the car drove under the triple underpass. All of the effort with Oswald would have been for naught if a single shooter from Dal-Tex or wherever would have some how missed his shot.

If you're smart, you know well enough that a single shot from the Dal-Tex building, an easy shot from a mere 100 yards, in the center of his head would have easily done the deed. But why take that chance? So the kill zone was actually overkill IMO.

This is why, too, I don't believe that the so-called other plots in Chicago and Tampa ever happened. It was going to be Dallas where the police department was one of the most corrupt in any big city at that time. This doesn't necessarily mean the DPD was in on the plot - it simply means they can be told what to do. And let's face it, there were many, many people who did not like the Kennedys, the president and the family. It wasn't as if he was Uncle Abe back in the 1860's.

And it was going to be Dallas because Johnson could put the heat on folks down there.  He was from there and could tell them what to do.  This does not mean Johnson was in on it - again, all the groundwork was laid, the shooting was completed but overdone, and now it's a simple matter of getting people to play ball with the official story. The very first example of that is Rather on live national TV fudging the Zapruder film description.  The next is the Katenbach memo. The third was Wade coming out and saying, "We have our man," and so on.

The only remaining loose end was Oswald - he was probably supposed to be killed in some kind of gunfight in the theater (headline - KENNEDY ASSASSIN KILLED BY COP IN THEATER; sub headline - OSWALD THREATENED POLICE WITH PISTOL). Why in the world did he have that pistol? It doesn't make logical sense to have one unless someone *told him* to take one and go to the theater.

When the gunfight didn't happen according to plan, they basically said xxxx it and snuck Ruby in to get rid of him and on national TV no less.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Howsley on July 22, 2018, 11:14:20 PM
... the kill zone was actually overdone ... they left no chances, which means they had shooters all around Dealey. They wanted to make sure 100% that he was going to be dead by the time the car drove under the triple underpass...

Where is the evidence?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on July 22, 2018, 11:21:59 PM
Where is the evidence?

Do your own research, please. There's plenty of it on here and elsewhere. I have no time for this...

(https://media.giphy.com/media/pxETafb8lyWiY/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 22, 2018, 11:38:26 PM
Where is the evidence?

Yes, let's kill the President in broad daylight in front of hundreds of people - many with cameras - and use multiple shooters located all over the place.

This makes no sense at all, of course.

These are very powerful conspirators with lots of resources. So they decided to use the most convoluted, complex plan possible.

Hey, it's fun being a conspiracy advocate. You can make up all kinds of imaginative things. Double agents, and spies, and world war and secret this and secret that.

Gary Mack recognized much of this conspiracy mongering before he died and changed his views. Yes, he was a conspiracy believer - he thought Oswald had help. But he was smart enough and open minded enough to realize that most of what the conspiracy people like Simpich and Peter Scott argue is just nonsense. But fun nonsense.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 22, 2018, 11:48:13 PM
Alan, I just described the alternative - the "Castro did it and let's start WWIII" scenario. And when LBJ Hoover and other powers that be didn't want to start WWIII, then they went to the next scenario - the "crazy Commie lone nut" did it.

Otherwise, there really wasn't any need to create a second, third, and fourth scenario or plot.  They had their perfect patsy, someone who could be subtly led around making him think he was doing some kind of intel work, all the while putting him in place to take the fall. They had it all worked out and this is why the kill zone was actually overdone - they left no chances, which means they had shooters all around Dealey. They wanted to make sure 100% that he was going to be dead by the time the car drove under the triple underpass. All of the effort with Oswald would have been for naught if a single shooter from Dal-Tex or wherever would have some how missed his shot.

If you're smart, you know well enough that a single shot from the Dal-Tex building, an easy shot from a mere 100 yards, in the center of his head would have easily done the deed. But why take that chance? So the kill zone was actually overkill IMO.

This is why, too, I don't believe that the so-called other plots in Chicago and Tampa ever happened. It was going to be Dallas where the police department was one of the most corrupt in any big city at that time. This doesn't necessarily mean the DPD was in on the plot - it simply means they can be told what to do. And let's face it, there were many, many people who did not like the Kennedys, the president and the family. It wasn't as if he was Uncle Abe back in the 1860's.

And it was going to be Dallas because Johnson could put the heat on folks down there.  He was from there and could tell them what to do.  This does not mean Johnson was in on it - again, all the groundwork was laid, the shooting was completed but overdone, and now it's a simple matter of getting people to play ball with the official story. The very first example of that is Rather on live national TV fudging the Zapruder film description.  The next is the Katenbach memo. The third was Wade coming out and saying, "We have our man," and so on.

The only remaining loose end was Oswald - he was probably supposed to be killed in some kind of gunfight in the theater (headline - KENNEDY ASSASSIN KILLED BY COP IN THEATER; sub headline - OSWALD THREATENED POLICE WITH PISTOL). Why in the world did he have that pistol? It doesn't make logical sense to have one unless someone *told him* to take one and go to the theater.

When the gunfight didn't happen according to plan, they basically said xxxx it and snuck Ruby in to get rid of him and on national TV no less.

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Michael. Who, in your opinion, was the 'they' who planned and pulled off the assassination?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on July 23, 2018, 12:05:43 AM
Thanks for your thoughts on this, Michael. Who, in your opinion, was the 'they' who planned and pulled off the assassination?

I'll let Castro himself answer that.  That's all I'll say about the why and who:

https://kennedysandking.com/news-items/castro-figured-out-the-jfk-case-in-five-days-speech-of-november-27th-1963

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fidel-castro-s-first-speech-on-the-jfk-assassination-11-23-1963
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 23, 2018, 12:26:49 AM
I'll let Castro himself answer that.  That's all I'll say about the why and who:

https://kennedysandking.com/news-items/castro-figured-out-the-jfk-case-in-five-days-speech-of-november-27th-1963

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fidel-castro-s-first-speech-on-the-jfk-assassination-11-23-1963

OK, so on the one side we have what Castro calls "the intellectual authors of the murder" who wanted people to swallow the "Castro did it and let's start WWIII" line. Let's call these the planners.

On the other side we have those who, after the event, were desperate to pin this on the "crazy Commie lone nut". Let's call these (with all due irony) the investigators.

Planners vs Investigators: an important distinction, which you yourself seem happy to make.

My point stands: LHO in the doorway = a nightmare for the investigators, but not for the planners. The former may now want this blamed on a lone nut, but the latter wanted it blamed on a Commie conspiracy-------LHO's link to the carcano would do the job nicely, wherever he might happen to be during the actual assassination.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on July 23, 2018, 12:37:00 AM
OK, so on the one side we have what Castro calls "the intellectual authors of the murder" who wanted people to swallow the "Castro did it and let's start WWIII" line. Let's call these the planners.

On the other side we have those who, after the event, were desperate to pin this on the "crazy Commie lone nut". Let's call these (with all due irony) the investigators.

Planners vs Investigators: an important distinction, which you yourself seem happy to make.

My point stands: LHO in the doorway = a nightmare for the investigators, but not for the planners. The former may now want this blamed on a lone nut, but the latter wanted it blamed on a Commie conspiracy-------LHO's link to the carcano would do the job nicely, wherever he might happen to be during the actual assassination.


Quote
My point stands: LHO in the doorway = a nightmare for the investigators

Huh? Oswald himself says he was in the building! If Oswald was outside when the President went by wouldn't he be screaming this from the rooftops?

Question. Were you in the building at the time.
Oswald.   Naturally if I work in that building.


@1:20



JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 23, 2018, 12:41:16 AM

Huh? Oswald himself says he was in the building! If Oswald was outside when the President went by wouldn't he be screaming this from the rooftops?

Question. Were you in the building at the time.
Oswald.   Naturally if I work in that building.


@1:20



JohnM

Had he been out in the street at the time of the shooting, his answer would have been 'No'!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Howsley on July 23, 2018, 12:52:17 AM
Do your own research, please. There's plenty of it on here and elsewhere. I have no time for this...

(https://media.giphy.com/media/pxETafb8lyWiY/giphy.gif)

The problem with that Michael is that you have referred to the science as "mumbo jumbo" and that your opinion trumps the official evidence.

With that as a starting point how can anyone be expected to know what you consider evidence?

That's why I asked to see what you consider supports this contention: 

... the kill zone was actually overdone ... they left no chances, which means they had shooters all around Dealey. They wanted to make sure 100% that he was going to be dead by the time the car drove under the triple underpass...


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 23, 2018, 05:57:45 AM
The problem with that Michael is that you have referred to the science as "mumbo jumbo" and that your opinion trumps the official evidence.

With that as a starting point how can anyone be expected to know what you consider evidence?

That's why I asked to see what you consider supports this contention: 

... the kill zone was actually overdone ... they left no chances, which means they had shooters all around Dealey. They wanted to make sure 100% that he was going to be dead by the time the car drove under the triple underpass...

I wonder how they would figure out how not to each each other in such a crossfire
 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 23, 2018, 10:07:30 AM
Friends!

Here's a nice blend of Wiegman and Darnell that (if memory serves) Chris Davidson put together:

(https://i.imgur.com/u47VP7p.jpg)

Look at Billy Lovelady. He is one step down from where he was in the earlier Wiegman frames.
Look at Buell Wesley Frazier. He's on the landing.
(https://i.imgur.com/Be2Eyjt.jpg)

Now! Compare their heights. Can anyone seriously believe that the 5'8.5" Lovelady is here only one step down from the ~6' Frazier? Yet that is what those trying to put Lovelady on the landing in the earlier Wiegman frames would have you believe!
No way. No how!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 23, 2018, 06:21:27 PM
Hey, it's fun being a conspiracy advocate. You can make up all kinds of imaginative things. Double agents, and spies, and world war and secret this and secret that.

It's fun being an ODIA devotee.  You can weave an entire narrative around 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon, a paper bag, and a ring in a teacup.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 23, 2018, 07:13:07 PM
According to James and Andrej's respective simulations,
------------the lintel shadow puts Frazier front of landing.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZIIt5s5.jpg)

If James & Andrej are right (and they seem to be) Billy Lovelady cannot be on the landing in Wiegman or his face would be half-shaded. Lovelady, at 5'8.5", is NOT a full head smaller than Frazier at ~6'!:

(https://i.imgur.com/roh0gmA.jpg)

It would be outstanding if someone could produce a scaled Wiegman-to-Darnell gif so that we could make a height comparison of
UPPER LOVELADY (in Wiegman) & PRAYER MAN (in Darnell)!

i.e. something a bit more SOPHISTICATED than this crude effort of mine!

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

 Thumb1:

When viewing posted cropped WiegmanImages of the TSBD entrance portal, the bottom/smaller cropped WI on the left appears to have a PrayerPersonImage that is larger in size, than PPI as seen in the larger cropped WI just above the said smaller WI cropped version.
It would appear that should any evidentiary value be placed on the two WIs ::), it is diminished by the lack of PPI sizing to scale as produced.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 23, 2018, 09:21:26 PM
Gentlemen,

A couple of points to ponder here:

1. At Z313 of the Zapruder film, President Kennedy suffers his most serious wound, it?s violent impact forcing his body to the ?Back and to the Left?; to the ?Back and to the Left?; to the "Back and to the Left??

2. At this very same instance, photographer Dave Weigman, a cameraman for NBC, travelling in the 6th car behind President Kennedy?s limousine, is pointing his camera at the doorway/front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository. This small but important detail is essentially important to establish a genuine timeline of the unfolding events, thus remember Mr. Weigman (Dave) snaps his image at the same sequence w/Z313. 

3. In his continued panning of the front entrance, before he jumps out of his press car and runs further down Elm Street, he captures Doorway Man (Lovelady). He also captures a figure standing BEHIND Lovelady in the shadows there ---->

https://jfkact.org/f/z313-mr-weigman

*Note: Weigman (Dave) snaps this at the same sequence [/u]w/Z313

4. In this same time sequence, we know Sarah Stanton is not this figure standing there behind Lovelady, because the historical record tells us precisely where she was at this specific moment in time & with whom ---->

FBI statement of Mrs. Robert E. Sanders, Sr Clerk Accountant

"At approximately 12 :20 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the lunchroom on the second floor of
the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the Presidential Motorcade
which I knew was due to pass the Depository building at about 12 :30 PM. I took up a position at
the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my
recollection I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance."

"I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am
unsure as to the others. Mrs. Stanton is likewise an employee of the Texas School Book
Depository."

"To the best of my recollection I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at any time on November 22, 1963,
and although I knew him by sight as an employee of the building I did not know him by name and
had never spoken to him at any time."

"I have read this and the two preceding pages of this statement, initialed each page and each
correction and find it true and correct to the best of my knowledge."


5. Since no one is capable of being in two places all at once, Mrs. Stanton?s position way over on the east side of the entrance w/Mrs. Sanders rules her out as the figure behind Lovelady, who stands there on the polar opposite end of the front entrance. Please note, Mr. Weigman?s image was captured while the figure behind Lovelady was in that specific location, while at the same time Mrs. Stanton was specifically elsewhere in a different location w/Mrs, Sanders.

Good day, gentlemen. Back in the Fall when the leaves are blooming in full brilliant colours.

Hi Adam! I like your surname ;)

You're quite right, of course-----------Sarah Stanton was never a serious candidate for Prayer Man, nor (obviously) is Pauline Sanders. Besides, it's not a woman. A sharp eye will detect a male receding hairline and side part of the hair. As for male candidates other than one Lee Harvey Oswald? There ain't none!! ???

Now! The key visual relationship here is that between LHO in Wiegman and LHO in Darnell.

Look how close his right elbow is to the redbrick section of the wall in Wiegman when he does NOT have OBJECT X raised to his mouth! (Note: we can get a sense of the full length of that right elbow by looking at the length of his LEFT elbow):

(https://i.imgur.com/cvFh579.jpg)

We have already established that Billy Lovelady is one step down from the landing, and then two steps down:

(https://i.imgur.com/GJmq2iy.gif)

The closeness of LHO's right elbow to the redbrick section in Wiegman puts HIM one step down from the landing.

And in Darnell? Well, LHO is still one step down, BUT his posture has changed. He has his arms folded, which raises his right elbow and raises his left elbow up to his body too. What the eye is TRICKED into seeing as his left elbow in Darnell is NOT his left elbow---------it is something (as yet unidentified) BEHIND LHO!

(https://i.imgur.com/1xozkoj.jpg)

The folded arms:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ns1V32X.jpg)

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

His left elbow APPEARS to be the only part of his body catching direct sunlight.

This difference in posture-------and NOT the slight change in perspective from Wiegman to Darnell-------explains why the gap between right elbow and redbrick section is so much larger in Darnell than in Wiegman.

The job NOW is to work out what the heck that light object behind LHO in Darnell-----i.e. his 'left elbow  ::) -------really is! Then the thing is, to coin a phrase, cinched  Thumb1:




Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 23, 2018, 09:23:33 PM
On the contrary. When we honestly take into consideration precise what Lovelady says, we have to honestly note the following distinctions (took the liberty of emphasizing in bold) ----->

Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me

Of course, Warren Commission counselor (Dave Ball) quickly redirects the conversation away from the individual who was BEHIND Lovelady and resets Lovelady's focus on who he was WITH instead. Once again, so we are all clear on who Lovelady was WITH ---->

Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton,

Major difference between standing WITH someone and having someone stand BEHIND you. Once again, Was there someone other than Shelley and Stanton BEHIND Lovelady? Here's HIS answer--not mine ---->

Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me

Heading away for now, but will reengage later this Fall when the leaves are in full bloom amid brilliant colours. So submitted by A1an Ford

Hold on, are you the OTHER Alan Ford?! Very pleased to meet you-----and ain't it a kick in the head that our name is as common as Jack Kennedy!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 23, 2018, 09:33:08 PM
Well said, Mr. Ford, appreciate your astute analysis. Enjoy the remainder of your Summer sir. Cheers. So submitted by A1an Ford.

 Thumb1:

Given that you were posting on Deep Politics well before I was posting here, I'd suggest that my username be changed to Alan Ford2 and yours to Alan Ford. Apart from the simple justice of the thing, it would make things less confusing to Brian, who has enough on his plate as it is with the whole Two Oswalds thing!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 24, 2018, 09:42:23 AM
It's fun being an ODIA devotee.  You can weave an entire narrative around 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon, a paper bag, and a ring in a teacup.

You lot have made a tempest in a teacup by stubbornly trying to claim each item own its own should be enough to convict.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 24, 2018, 04:41:17 PM
"and behind me"

Quite likely correct Brian, just not in the BillyNolenLovelady WarrenCommissionTestimony as recorded on 04/07/'64. And, I do not believe that his testimony was 'cut-off', as the questioner, MrBall, simply sought a repeat of a named area occupant.

Time and time again, testimony places MsSarahDeanStanton on the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building Elm St mid-level 1st floor entrance landing at the time of the assassination of JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr, and critical wounding of JohnBowdenConnallyJr.


There is no reliable provable eyewitness testimony that places AccusedLoneGunmanAssassin LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Bldg Elm St mid-level 1st floor entrance landing at said time.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 24, 2018, 05:03:25 PM
You lot have made a tempest in a teacup by stubbornly trying to claim each item own its own should be enough to convict.

Not sure I follow exactly but it's the usual complaint.
So without "them", where would you be?
This case would be dead as would every JFK forum.
Whether you realize it or not you are part of the same cult and you will need to plug the gap with something.

Here's an idea.
Go to church, kneel and pray, sing along, take communion, then as the congregation leave, curse and spit at them.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 24, 2018, 05:25:52 PM
...There is no reliable provable eyewitness testimony...

True, without stronger evidence backing it up, it's not reliable and proves nothing, it can still get you convicted though but that's not why we're here is it?
Allen Dulles the king of all liars, asked BRW if he would tell the truth,
in a case about the death of a man who fired him from a job where he was paid to lie and you link to it with no sense of irony.

No representation, no cross examination = not legally binding.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 24, 2018, 05:54:03 PM
...
Question. Were you in the building at the time.
Oswald.   Naturally if I work in that building.



The only question we can hear is "Did you shoot the president?" and to this Lee says. "I work in that building"??!
Bit of a non sequitur, no?
So could "the building" have been mentioned in one of the questions that we can't quite make out?
Why mention the building like that unless both parties know of it?
Otherwise the next question to him should have been, "what building is that?".

One other thing, "were you in the building at the time.... (of what?)
"at the time he FIRST LEARNT of the shooting?" perhaps yes, other people went back inside and only then learnt of the shooting, the most famous of all is ROY TRULY despite his embarrassing attempt to explain why he was close to the steps seconds after the shooting.
Darnell tells us the truth. He was walking back toward the building before Baker suprised him and Marrion had no time to relay the situation to him at that time.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 24, 2018, 07:42:28 PM
On the landing, slightly leaning and with shadow on the back of the head, invisible from Wiegman's POV.
(https://i.imgur.com/EgNd5U6.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 24, 2018, 07:48:58 PM
You lot have made a tempest in a teacup by stubbornly trying to claim each item own its own should be enough to convict.

Actually it was Bugliosi who claimed that.

But a bunch of things that are not evidence of anything, when combined, are still not evidence of anything.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 24, 2018, 10:14:32 PM
Brian.
Do you believe in aliens and the lord and savior Jeeezus H Christ like your mentor RG does?
After all your unnecessary jabs I think we deserve to know.
Howdya feel on evolution?

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 25, 2018, 05:09:11 PM
On the landing, slightly leaning and with shadow on the back of the head, invisible from Wiegman's POV.
(https://i.imgur.com/EgNd5U6.jpg)

A couple of things, Barry.
-------Ralph Cinque is 5'6", Lovelady was 5'8.5 inches
-------What height is the man in the 'Shelley' position? He certainly looks a lot taller than Ralph. Yet Altgens shows 'Shelley' (height 5'6") higher than Lovelady.
-------Were the steps unchanged between 1963 and 2012?
-------(Most crucially:) If we compare Wiegman and Darnell, we see that the height disparity with Frazier is too great for Lovelady to have beeen on the landing a few frames earlier:

(https://i.imgur.com/Be2Eyjt.jpg)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 25, 2018, 05:11:08 PM
It is NOT Carl Edward Jones's raised arm, it belongs to someone dark complected further down Elm (and well out of shot in the Wiegman doorway frames):

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

Don't believe something so far away from Lovelady could look so near him? Check out this demonstration of how Altgens' zoom lens creates counter-intuitive perspective effects!

(https://i.imgur.com/od8evR3.jpg)


Waving hands (Towner):

(https://i.imgur.com/YiBlGfv.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 26, 2018, 06:21:23 AM
Thought experiment!

Imagine if things had gone down differently in the Depository building that day:
----photographic evidence existed proving that a man named Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK from the sixth-floor window
----after LHO's escape from the building, the stabbed body of fellow employee Jack Dougherty was found in the storage room at the front of the first floor
----only one real mystery remained in the case: Where was Jack Dougherty at the time of the assassination? Had he been upstairs helping LHO, only to be betrayed by him when the two of them got downstairs?
----LNers argue that LHO acted alone and that Dougherty must have been downstairs somewhere at the time of the shooting; LHO must have had an altercation with him just before making his exit
----CTers argue that Dougherty was with LHO on the sixth floor

Now, for this thought experiment to work, we must also imagine that LHO was black, and the only known photo of Jack Dougherty is this:
(https://i.imgur.com/fz2w07E.jpg)

THEN! A figure is spotted standing alone on the west side of the doorway in two sets of footage taken at the time of, and just after, the shooting:

(https://i.imgur.com/eKkOGv2.jpg)

This figure is dubbed 'Prayer Man'.

The LNers get excited. Could this possibly be the elusive proof they have been seeking all these years that Jack Dougherty was NOT with LHO up on the sixth floor?

The CTers go crazy. The statements of every single Depository employee are carefully gone through in the hope of finding an alternative candidate for Prayer Man. The photographic record is painstakingly scrutinised. Relatives of long-deceased employees are even contacted in the hope of finding a viable fit.

Result? The more information comes in, the worse things get for the CTers. No even halfway realistic candidate other than Jack Dougherty remains.

The LNers smile in triumph. A hard core of fanatical CTers, however, refuses to move past their state of denial. They throw ever more irrational objections at what has become perfectly obvious to everyone else: Dougherty is Prayer Man and so could not have been with LHO on the sixth floor. Weirdly, these reality-denying CTers are joined----led, even-----by a peculiar cabal of LNers who refuse to accept that Dougherty is Prayer Man for no better reason than that a) this would destroy their own pet theory of where Dougherty was at the time of the assassination, b) they don't, in their heart of hearts, want the Dougherty mystery to be solved as it would deprive them of their favorite hobby.

Mutatis mutandis, friends, the above describes the absurdity of the current Prayer Man 'impasse'.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Howsley on July 26, 2018, 06:38:31 AM
Thought experiment!

Imagine if things had gone down differently in the Depository building that day:
----photographic evidence existed proving that a man named Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK from the sixth-floor window
----after LHO's escape from the building, the stabbed body of fellow employee Jack Dougherty was found in the storage room at the front of the first floor ...

Alan, at this point there would be 45 different scenarios as to how the stabbing took place ranging from Dougherty self inflicting the wounds himself before passing out and expiring through to a circus troupe of Romanian knife throwers practicing their act on the first floor, screwing up big time then grabbing their knives and fleeing across the rail yards.



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 26, 2018, 06:42:01 AM
Alan, at this point there would be 45 different scenarios as to how the stabbing took place ranging from Dougherty self inflicting the wounds himself before passing out and expiring through to a circus troupe of Romanian knife throwers practicing their act on the first floor, screwing up big time then grabbing their knives and fleeing across the rail yards.

LOL!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 26, 2018, 03:56:00 PM
Dougherty?

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Dougherty.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 26, 2018, 05:09:23 PM
Dougherty?

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Dougherty.gif)

Surely that's Lovelady, Chris?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 26, 2018, 06:17:24 PM
Thought experiment!


Here's the problem, Alan.  There is no good argument for PP being LHO.  It's all based on a few people imagining that this blob of undifferentiated pixels "resembles" Oswald.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 26, 2018, 06:28:54 PM
Surely that's Lovelady, Chris?

Does he possess the balding patches?

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/LoveLady.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 26, 2018, 06:38:10 PM
Does anyone have a picture of Dougherty back in the day?

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/LoveLady2.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 26, 2018, 06:47:57 PM
Does anyone have a picture of Dougherty back in the day?

Many many people have tried to find one.  And have never been successful.  Just some group photos from high school and a picture of his brother.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 26, 2018, 07:34:50 PM
Here's the problem, Alan.  There is no good argument for PP being LHO.  It's all based on a few people imagining that this blob of undifferentiated pixels "resembles" Oswald.

John, no good argument-----as of yet------has emerged for PP being someone other than LHO.
If you disagree, perhaps you might suggest a candidate from the pool of Depository employees known to have been at work that day?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 26, 2018, 07:35:40 PM
Does he possess the balding patches?

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/LoveLady.gif)

Completely different lighting conditions, Chris.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 26, 2018, 07:38:40 PM
Can you offer me a good argument, John, for PP being someone other than LHO?

I can't offer you a good argument for this blob of pixels being anyone in particular at all.

Quote
Who, out of all the Depository employees known to have been at work that day, do you think might PP be?

Why do you assume that PP is necessarily a Depository employee?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 26, 2018, 07:54:03 PM
Here's the problem, Alan.  There is no good argument for PP being LHO.  It's all based on a few people imagining that this blob of undifferentiated pixels "resembles" Oswald.

And by the way John, there has been evidence presented, including SarahStanton's family members' statement, identifying PrayerPersonImage as representing SarahStanton. And, known eyewitnesses gave statements/testimony as evidence of her presence on the landing as the motorcade passed the TSBD Building.
However, there is no eyewitness statement/testimony that indicates LeeOswald as being there at that time.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 26, 2018, 09:01:29 PM
Friends!

Here's a nice blend of Wiegman and Darnell that (if memory serves) Chris Davidson put together:

(https://i.imgur.com/u47VP7p.jpg)

Look at Billy Lovelady. He is one step down from where he was in the earlier Wiegman frames.
Look at Buell Wesley Frazier. He's on the landing.
(https://i.imgur.com/Be2Eyjt.jpg)

Now! Compare their heights. Can anyone seriously believe that the 5'8.5" Lovelady is here only one step down from the ~6' Frazier? Yet that is what those trying to put Lovelady on the landing in the earlier Wiegman frames would have you believe!
No way. No how!

The above is the best way to look at it because BL is without doubt two steps lower than BWF.
In the looping Wiegman gif, Lovelady descends less than the height of his head, one step.
So I'm officially off the fence, I was already once before when I said there's no shadow on BL's head but that alone wasn't enough and I almost got back on it.
Cheers Alan. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 26, 2018, 09:26:53 PM
Altgens might be useful if you could replicate it accurately and prove your point Brian but that ship may have sailed if the steps have been refurbished, at this stage you can only guess, I myself cannot tell from Altgens alone and refer you back to what you just quouted.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 26, 2018, 09:55:47 PM
You cannot tell with one frame of Wiegamn alone, that's the problem Brian.
Stick with Altgens, you have a point but I would want to see it proven.
Two things to consider;
Lovelady is probably on the toes of his right foot.
He's also probably stood closer to the camera than we thought, not by the railing at all but halfway between it and the wall.

You don't need Dallas to prove this, just a set of steps with 7" risers. Go for it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 26, 2018, 10:00:57 PM
RE: blob of pixels.
John, I've thought it looks a little like LHO but I've never had to use the pixels to do it.
That's what you need to see female features not male ones.
Blobs and pixels are what was shown to Stanton's family(allegedly).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 26, 2018, 10:50:25 PM
Luckily for me, up on the toes on just the one foot while leaning is not too jarring, in fact it's the most natural thing to do the further I lean.
Perhaps it makes no difference to what we see but the ball is in your court, you have a point to prove.

Wiegman says he's two steps down and only came down one, ie. not on the landing, are you going to go on record as not being able to see that?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: James Hackerott on July 26, 2018, 11:42:34 PM
I have entered comment and graphics related to Lovelady in Wiegman & Altgens in the Photographic forum.
Where was Lovelady Standing in Wiegman and Altgens6?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 26, 2018, 11:47:40 PM
Brian, remind yourself of the efforts made to find a shadow on anyone in any image, anywhere near the railing's west side(virtually nothing found).
Then remind yourself how close Altgens and that hIgh Lovelady frame is in time(he cannot have moved much).
Then remember what you told me, how the angle might be misleading me, when I myself said he looks close to the railing.

Now you have to be kidding, after all that you're still claiming he's close to the railing but now even worse, behind the end of it, for what!?  To support the "he's on the landing" claim that then proves PM is not Lee?
How will you prove that?  Certainly not with words.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 26, 2018, 11:57:29 PM
I can't offer you a good argument for this blob of pixels being anyone in particular at all.

No offence, John, but you're just being glib.
There was enough information in this blob of pixels to enable folk to correctly identify Buell Wesley Frazier:

(https://i.imgur.com/6LWUaWL.jpg)

Same went for Marrion Baker, Roy Truly and several others. No problem in principle with applying the same procedure to PP. As one leading researcher pointed out when the above frame first became available: "A sharp eye will detect a male receding hairline and side part of the hair." Fits LHO. Why not him, given that
a) his exact whereabouts at this time are not firmly established
b) he claimed to have been on the first floor at the time of the assassination
c) every other employee in the building has been ruled out?

It's quite amusing. When the above Darnell frame first appeared five years ago, several LNers rushed to identify PP as Billy Lovelady. When that didn't, uh, work out, they turned to dismissing PP as an unrecognisable bunch of pixels. Basically, anything but admit that it might be LHO! It stops being amusing, however, when Warren Report critics follow their lead.

Quote
Why do you assume that PP is necessarily a Depository employee?

Why wouldn't I?

Since you haven't offered an alternative candidate to LHO, are we take your question above as an admission that PP is either LHO or a non-employee?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 26, 2018, 11:58:36 PM
The above is the best way to look at it because BL is without doubt two steps lower than BWF.
In the looping Wiegman gif, Lovelady descends less than the height of his head, one step.
So I'm officially off the fence, I was already once before when I said there's no shadow on BL's head but that alone wasn't enough and I almost got back on it.
Cheers Alan.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 27, 2018, 12:25:08 AM
No offence, John, but you're just being glib.
There was enough information in this blob of pixels to enable folk to correctly identify Buell Wesley Frazier:

I don't know if that's Frazier or not, but we do know from several people's statements that Frazier was on the front steps in that approximate position.  We know no such thing about Oswald.

Quote
Same went for Marrion Baker,

Really?  Baker was identified on the basis of being a cop running toward the building, not because it "looks like him".

Quote
As one leading researcher pointed out when the above frame first became available: "A sharp eye will detect a male receding hairline and side part of the hair."

That "sharp eye" is otherwise known as pareidolia and wishful thinking.

Quote
Fits LHO. Why not him, given that

There is a big gap between "why not him" and "it's him".

Quote
It's quite amusing. When the above Darnell frame first appeared five years ago, several LNers rushed to identify PP as Billy Lovelady. When that didn't, uh, work out, they turned to dismissing PP as an unrecognisable bunch of pixels.

I have said unrecognisable bunch of pixels from the beginning.

Quote
Why wouldn't I?

Uh, because there's no good reason to assume that it's an employee?

Quote
Since you haven't offered an alternative candidate to LHO, are we take your question above as an admission that PP is either LHO or a non-employee?

You know as well as I do that every other employee in the building has not been ruled out.  If that were true, then nobody would be suggesting that it's Sarah Stanton, right?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 27, 2018, 12:29:43 AM
The same Altgens Lovelean in Wiegman, no assistance required.

(https://i.imgur.com/roh0gmA.jpg)

Head seems a little straighter so he's probably coming out of it but that's it, it's still there, his left shoulder lowered.

Btw Brian, don't ever mention shadow on BL again until you abandon your new behind the top of railing theory.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 27, 2018, 12:45:59 AM
The same Altgens Lovelean in Wiegman, no assistance required.

(https://i.imgur.com/roh0gmA.jpg)

Head seems a little straighter so he's probably coming out of it but that's it, it's still there, his left shoulder lowered.

Also, Barry, note Frazier just visible behind Lovelady here. The height discrepancy puts Lovelady one step down.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 27, 2018, 01:19:17 AM
I don't know if that's Frazier or not, but we do know from several people's statements that Frazier was on the front steps in that approximate position.  We know no such thing about Oswald.
Exactly!
Really?  Baker was identified on the basis of being a cop running toward the building, not because it "looks like him".
Absolutely!
That "sharp eye" is otherwise known as pareidolia and wishful thinking.
A factual observation!
There is a big gap between "why not him" and "it's him".
In this case, a gap of epic proportions!
I have said unrecognisable bunch of pixels from the beginning.
Honest and consistent observation!
Uh, because there's no good reason to assume that it's an employee?
Maybe, but options need to be available either way!
You know as well as I do that every other employee in the building has not been ruled out.  If that were true, then nobody would be suggesting that it's Sarah Stanton, right?
Another keen, but often overlooked observation!
And the numbers don't lie, so with investigation and process of elimination, the most likely candidates in my conclusion are SarahStanton and PaulineSanders, with additional produced evidence indicating PrayerWomanImage represents SarahStanton.

My comments underlined.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 27, 2018, 04:30:37 PM
Can you post some ilustration?

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tdo8G0vyn3c/T22Cv9lSIGI/AAAAAAAAA8Q/SpnjAFvxtD8/s1600/tom+jerry+animated+gif+(25).gif.)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on July 27, 2018, 09:08:35 PM
No account of the interrogation has Oswald claiming to be out front during the motorcade. 

Have you got a recording of those interrogations or do we just take their word for it?

JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 27, 2018, 09:19:13 PM
Have you got a recording of those interrogations or do we just take their word for it?

Nope.  But given that there is no account by anybody ever that Oswald was out front during the motorcade, or that he ever said he was out front during the motorcade, then what reason would anybody have for believing that he was?

Yeah, I know.  That distinctive hairline.

But your gotcha attempt is another one of your many failures.  Pointing out that the after-the-fact memories of the interrogations are unreliable (and they are) doesn't somehow become positive evidence that Oswald was out front during the motorcade.  All it shows is that we don't know for sure exactly what was said.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on July 27, 2018, 09:26:50 PM
Nope.  But given that there is no account by anybody ever that Oswald was out front during the motorcade, or that he ever said he was out front during the motorcade, then what reason would anybody have for believing that he was?

Yeah, I know.  That distinctive hairline.

But your gotcha attempt is another one of your many failures.  Pointing out that the after-the-fact memories of the interrogations are unreliable (and they are) doesn't somehow become positive evidence that Oswald was out front during the motorcade.  All it shows is that we don't know for sure exactly what was said.



Blah blah blah, you've been caught "Iacoletti", next time show some consistency because your moral flexibility does you no favours.


JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 27, 2018, 09:41:05 PM
Blah blah blah, you've been caught "Iacoletti", next time show some consistency because your moral flexibility does you no favours.

Like I said, nice try.  But fail.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on July 27, 2018, 09:50:42 PM
Like I said, nice try.
Oh, you said well that changes everything.

JohnM



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 27, 2018, 10:05:55 PM
Oh, you said well that changes everything.

Shut up, "Mytton", the grownups are talking.  You don't believe that PP is Oswald, so you're just in this thread to troll me.

Very badly.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on July 27, 2018, 10:13:31 PM
Shut up, "Mytton", the grownups are talking.  You don't believe that PP is Oswald, so you're just in this thread to troll me.

Very badly.



Quote
Shut up, "Mytton", the grownups are talking.

grownups. LOL!

Quote
You don't believe that PP is Oswald

How do you know what I believe?

Quote
so you're just in this thread to troll me.

No, I just came across more of your inconsistencies.

Quote
Very badly.

If I was in fact trolling I would seek to get a response and upset my victim so in other words I'm doing Very Good!



JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 27, 2018, 10:25:50 PM
Hmmm "I've read it" vs "I tend to gloss over"

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/minecraftcreepypasta/images/5/59/Troll-meme-smiley-emoticon.gif/revision/latest?cb=20171023184151)

Quote
Wow, our Forum No.1 Liar strikes again, Oops!

..and yet you can't point to a single thing I've lied about.  Hmmm....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 27, 2018, 10:28:37 PM
How do you know what I believe?

Because you're a nutter.  You think that Oswald was up in the sixth floor firing a rifle.  Not that you have any evidence of that either...

Quote
No, I just came across more of your inconsistencies.

That's not an inconsistency.  That's just more of your ineptitude in the construction of a logical argument.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 27, 2018, 11:42:30 PM
Frazier. He has repeatedly been asked about the PP figure. Not once has he suggested it is a female, still less that it is Stanton. Go figure.

Frazier said that Stanton remained to his left?  Please cite.

Quote
No offence, John, but you're arguing like a LNer.

I don't like unfounded assumptions and handwaving from any side.

Quote
Why would we distrust the shared memory of Stanton's daughter-in-law and granddaughter as to what she many times talked about?

Versus a first-hand account from Stanton herself?

Quote
Exactly. Who knows? So let's stop dismissing PP=LHO as though we already know where LHO was. Let's leave that to the LNers.

The right thing to do is to dismiss any claim that can't be demonstrated to be true.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on July 28, 2018, 08:28:29 AM
Frazier said that Stanton remained to his left?  Please cite.

You misunderstand (wilfully, I suspect): Frazier has many, many times identified Stanton as standing beside him on the landing. He obviously has a strong memory/association of her being there. Yet when shown PP, and pressed as to who it might be, she has not even entered into his head as a candidate. All he has been 'able' to offer is: Well, it's not Billy Lovelady or Bill Shelley, coz they'd already left the steps.

What does this tell us? Simply this: Stanton was to his left, she didn't do a cartwheel way over to his right between JFK turning onto Elm and Wiegman starting to film, and PP looks nothing like her.

This is not complicated, John. The Stanton theory is dead. It's not pining. It's dead. Your refusal to acknowledge this speaks only to your bias, your glib approach to the topic, and your glaring inability to come up with a credible non-LHO candidate.

Quote
Versus a first-hand account from Stanton herself?

That would have been ideal, but if Stanton made the understandable decision to opt for a quiet life and not tell the 'investigators' about LHO by the second-floor lunchroom, then who are we to judge? Besides, the FBI would only have done a Carolyn Arnold on her statement.

Luckily, however, she told a consistent story to her family over the years of seeing LHO by the second-floor lunchroom before the assassination. With a coke in his hand. I see no good reason to accuse her-----or Rose and Wanda-----of lying. Do you?

Quote
The right thing to do is to dismiss any claim that can't be demonstrated to be true.

And yet you refuse to dismiss a claim that has been demonstrated to be untrue (Stanton=LHO). Ho hum.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 28, 2018, 08:42:13 AM
When Reported Or Observed

Posts with more than one line of empty space at the start of a post, at the end of a post, between text lines, before or after quotes and/or before or after images, will be deleted from this point onwards.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 28, 2018, 07:11:38 PM
You misunderstand (wilfully, I suspect): Frazier has many, many times identified Stanton as standing beside him on the landing. He obviously has a strong memory/association of her being there. Yet when shown PP, and pressed as to who it might be, she has not even entered into his head as a candidate. All he has been 'able' to offer is: Well, it's not Billy Lovelady or Bill Shelley, coz they'd already left the steps.

What does this tell us? Simply this: Stanton was to his left, she didn't do a cartwheel way over to his right between JFK turning onto Elm and Wiegman starting to film, and PP looks nothing like her.

Can you provide the direct quote of the question asked of BuellFrazier regarding the positive identification of PrayerPersonImage?
And, can you provide the direct quote of BuellFrazier's answer in response to the specific quoted question about the positive identification of PrayerPersonImage?

Can you provide the direct quote by BuellFrazier stating that SarahStanton was to his left as filmed from the motorcade at or near the time of the assassination shooting in DealeyPlaza?
Can you provide a comparison photograph(s) that can be considered as proof that PrayerPersonImage looked nothing like SarahStanton in late 1963?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 29, 2018, 02:53:47 AM
Why do you believe Altgens is "4-5s before Lovelady is first seen in Weigman"  Brian?
Altgens is about 3.5s before Z313 ...  Z254+18+18+18+9= Z317.
Myers again, says 3.6s before Z313 for the start of Weigman.
Look at it like that and it's very close.
4-5S later than Altgens and Dave would have missed the limo aproaching the underpass, which is seen around Z313+7.5s.
*Any corrections appreciated.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 29, 2018, 02:54:00 PM
That's not a bad way of looking at it sure but we cannot now exactly where Cabell's vehicle is in Altgens, if it's already commited to it's turn onto Elm but just out of shot, then the difference could be around a second but, 2-3s could work also.
Myers has been accused f cooking the books to make things fit and the speed at which vehicles turned that corner part of the problem, whether he gains or loses more than half a second by doing so I'm not sure. If it was easy to get all those sources to line up, his study would be a lot, lot shorter.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 30, 2018, 09:22:24 PM
You misunderstand (wilfully, I suspect): Frazier has many, many times identified Stanton as standing beside him on the landing. He obviously has a strong memory/association of her being there. Yet when shown PP, and pressed as to who it might be, she has not even entered into his head as a candidate. All he has been 'able' to offer is: Well, it's not Billy Lovelady or Bill Shelley, coz they'd already left the steps.

What does this tell us? Simply this: Stanton was to his left, she didn't do a cartwheel way over to his right between JFK turning onto Elm and Wiegman starting to film, and PP looks nothing like her.

I'm not following your logic here.  Has it ever entered into Frazier's head that LHO is a candidate?

Quote
This is not complicated, John. The Stanton theory is dead. It's not pining. It's dead. Your refusal to acknowledge this speaks only to your bias, your glib approach to the topic, and your glaring inability to come up with a credible non-LHO candidate.

I'm only noting that it doesn't take much for you to declare a candidate dead.  At least we actually know that Stanton was out on the steps.

Quote
That would have been ideal, but if Stanton made the understandable decision to opt for a quiet life and not tell the 'investigators' about LHO by the second-floor lunchroom, then who are we to judge? Besides, the FBI would only have done a Carolyn Arnold on her statement.

That's probably true, but I don't know how she could have anticipated that prior to making her statement.

Quote
Luckily, however, she told a consistent story to her family over the years of seeing LHO by the second-floor lunchroom before the assassination. With a coke in his hand. I see no good reason to accuse her-----or Rose and Wanda-----of lying. Do you?

In general, I prefer first hand information over second hand information.  Particularly when many years have passed.  Human memory is not accurate or reliable.

Quote
And yet you refuse to dismiss a claim that has been demonstrated to be untrue (Stanton=LHO). Ho hum.

I'm still waiting for that demonstration.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 30, 2018, 10:54:46 PM
Have you studied Myers' contribution to this problem or not?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 30, 2018, 11:06:30 PM
Many many people have tried to find one.  And have never been successful.  Just some group photos from high school and a picture of his brother.
Interesting!!!
The Jack Dougherty listed as a sophmore in 1941 doesn't appear in his jun/senior yearbooks of 42/43.
The age quote from his testimony doesn't work either unless he was referred to as "Redfern" and graduated at the age of 14.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/933/42843787245_d15a7d6e0a_o.png)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on July 31, 2018, 12:45:22 PM
I still say it was a dude taking pictures with a camera, and that your conclusions are defective, IMHO.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 31, 2018, 05:18:21 PM
Your approach is neither scientific nor forensic Brian and no one ever called a study on this case by Myers irrelevant, wrong, biased perhaps but never irrelevant.
If I'm reading Chris correctly he thinks that Myers is out by around two seconds for the start of Wiegman but nevermind all the calculations and study just stick to Youtube and eyeballing it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 01, 2018, 09:45:28 PM
James is also of the opinion that Lovelady is on the landing in W1 but has placed Lovelady on the top step for Altgens despite that opinion, in the photo forum, go check it out and tell him why you think he's wrong.

What Frazier said 20/30/50 years later doesn't effect me much.
Altgens was much lower than both subjects, so that percieved 2" may not be as reliable as you think.
"I wasn't able to see it" does not require an obsticle, it only requires our imperfect memory and looking the other way.
Shelley could have seen the limo if he wanted to, Lovelady obviously did and went out of his way to do so, could that be a reaction to a noise which Shelley ignored?  Who cares?
Stanton does not have to be on the steps, just like Truly and Cambell do not have to be stood together, I've not yet gone out of my way to find her and PM is obviously a man and has skinny arms as you well know. Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on August 01, 2018, 09:49:54 PM
Interesting!!!
The Jack Dougherty listed as a sophmore in 1941 doesn't appear in his jun/senior yearbooks of 42/43.
The age quote from his testimony doesn't work either unless he was referred to as "Redfern" and graduated at the age of 14.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/933/42843787245_d15a7d6e0a_o.png)
My speculation for making sense of Dougherty's testimony along with the yearbooks:
Jack Dougherty finishes Sunset High School(1937) as a freshman at 14 yrs old.
Drops out until school year starts (September 1940), where he enrolls as a 17yr old sophmore (hence his name listed as such in the 1941 yearbook).
Drops out again and reaches 18yrs of age in Aug 1941.
Starts working for grocery stores for 1 year.
Turns 19 in August of 1942.
Signs up for military service 2 months later:

Mr. BALL - Where did you go to school?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Sunset High School.
Mr. BALL - You went through Sunset High School?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What year did you get out of high school? About?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, 1937.
Mr. BALL - 1937?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - What kind of work did you do after that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, of course, a year or so, you might say--just work in grocery stores until I was 19 and volunteered for the Armed Services in October--October 24, 1942.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Denis Morissette on August 03, 2018, 09:33:11 PM
Members of the Education are no longer allowed to credit you for any discovery you make in the future. One member told the adm that one the rules makes little sense. Gordon told him he could leave the forum without further discussion.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Denis Morissette on August 03, 2018, 09:49:06 PM
The admins of that particular forum are typically clueless on what to do.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Denis Morissette on August 04, 2018, 12:42:01 AM
DiEugenio is probably untouchable over there. Jack White was the untouchable on the Delarosa forum years ago.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on August 04, 2018, 01:01:55 AM
DiEugenio is probably untouchable over there. Jack White was the untouchable on the Delarosa forum years ago.

Ironically DiEugenio and I were banned together related to our criticism of Peter Janney's book.
All of DiEugenio's 4500 posts were deleted or made invisible.

Quote
....Occasionally I received emails from friends bring my attention to what some members were saying about me on the forum, other people?s forums and websites. Some of these unpleasant comments were about my so-called support of Peter Janney?s book, Mary?s Mosaic. It is true that I believe that the CIA were involved in the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer as can be seen on my page on her and the discussion that I started on 23rd March 2005.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3520

It seems my main sin was not that I was blaming the CIA for her death but because I was suggesting that JFK had affairs with women. I posted this attack on me by Jim DiEugenio here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11208

I even allowed Jim to join the Forum in June 2010 so he could continue his attacks on me. I am not complaining. I think these attacks say more about Jim than me. However, to my eternal shame, I did not protect Peter Janney enough when his book Mary?s Mosaic was published in 2012. What made it worse was one of his main tormentors was one of our moderators, Tom Scully.....

My posts there are all still visible.
Quote
Was Irv Kupcinet's Role Obscured A Consequence of Penn Jones's Writing?
By Guest Tom Scully, October 12, 2010 in JFK Assassination Debate

DiEugenio had a lot of catching up to do, reestablishing himself on that forum. He must have asked the
current admin regime to lift his Simkin ban, or an admin there believes DiEugenio attracts interest/eyeballs.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Denis Morissette on August 04, 2018, 01:10:12 AM
Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 04, 2018, 06:54:34 PM
"Greatest discovery" in the last few decades tells us LHO went back upstairs "to finish his work" (his work for the FPCC obviously).
Moving all those boxes around sure is thirsty work.
That's all yours Brian, congratulations.

Here's what you ignored.
Wanda sees the big face on page one here and says "it's too pretty to be Sandra"*.
Rose also says "NO it's not her" and "she had short hair".
Case closed.

*That just happens to be the worst insult you could ever pay to a female, go check it out on P1, "Too pretty", my god.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on August 04, 2018, 07:27:38 PM
Does anyone have any decent 1963/4 images of the Houston St side of the Book Depository? I'm particularly interested in the first floor. Thanks!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on August 04, 2018, 08:41:21 PM
Let's talk windows!

I can see lots of em in this Darnell shot, but they're all on the second floor.

(https://i.imgur.com/t7EH9VV.jpg)

Are there any windows on the first floor?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 04, 2018, 09:00:20 PM
No idea sorry Alan,
thought of Ruth Dean and Reese in that Murray image but apparently that's the DalTex we see.
Also Euins get's dragged around the side but we don't see much.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 05, 2018, 03:30:05 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/EklMRzg.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/nnYjjWH.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 05, 2018, 04:07:39 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/9yGCo4r.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 05, 2018, 04:57:00 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/PkHnqKN.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 05, 2018, 05:21:02 PM
Hmmm that's interesting, tell me what you can clearly see in the following images?
...

Looks like some of the mess I had to clear up  after my last date. Man was he annoying.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 05, 2018, 06:06:20 PM
I almost predicted the future, what people like Wanda and Rosa would say, well before we even saw what Sandra looked like. In Brian's world I must be some kind of genius but to me it's a complete no-brianer. The ugliest broad that day in Dallas.
... 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: Barry Pollard on August 05, 2018, 06:43:54 PM
Wow, vive la difference.
(https://i.imgur.com/Pfaryw9.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 05, 2018, 07:00:20 PM
Compared to these two, with Altgens lower lens position taken into consideration.
(https://i.imgur.com/fKme5It.jpg)
Yeah it's so far off the mark, don't even know what I was thinking.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 05, 2018, 08:14:29 PM
That is easy to recognize and quite Edsel.

How could you see with your nose stuck up there?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 05, 2018, 08:25:35 PM
...ScarfLadyImage

Yeah Scarflady your one and only contribution to the dissusion, what does "Davidson" have to do with her? Or did you miss that part? Big clue there Lenny.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 05, 2018, 08:37:31 PM
You're the biggest BS'er of all time.
Twenty times now you've said how everyone thought it was a woman but have supplied zero evidence for that claim. PM me the link and if it's the same "woman" on page one who (the "manly looking")Wanda ridiculously referred to as "pretty" I do whatever you ask of me... within reason OC
Make that 21 times, with no citation.
PM me the link, that's not against the rules, youu won't get banned like before.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 05, 2018, 08:40:12 PM
What "idiot" *who thinks himself a photo expert* doesn't know how to put a mark on an image in 2018?
Lenny, the floor is all yours.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on August 05, 2018, 09:55:41 PM
.. and now we wait for the quote from the many times you've claimed that Altgens shows BL on the landing, where you once mentioned the position of Ike's camera lens and what difference it makes.

Make no mistake, Barry: the reason for the rather desperate effort to put BL on the landing in EarlyWiegman is because of the implications for Prayer Person's height. This frame alone------------which shows BL and Frazier in real-time relation to one another------------destroys the BL on landing thesis:

(https://i.imgur.com/8JjGUKa.jpg)

Funny how Frazier's height is happily used as a known quantity when trying to determine Prayer Person's height but is ignored when trying to determine the location of Lovelady, whose height is already known!

EarlyWiegman: Lovelady 1 step down
LateWiegman: Lovelady 2 steps down

Bad news for the AnybodyButLHO crowd...

(https://i.imgur.com/82HZ5M1.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on August 05, 2018, 10:00:20 PM
Let's talk windows!

I can see lots of em in this Darnell shot, but they're all on the second floor.

(https://i.imgur.com/t7EH9VV.jpg)

Are there any windows on the first floor?

Eddie Piper said he watched the parade through a window on the first floor. Which window could that possibly have been?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on August 05, 2018, 10:23:14 PM
Eddie Piper said he watched the parade through a window on the first floor. Which window could that possibly have been?

Reason I ask is, photos and floor plan suggest remarkably poor visibility for someone positioned at one of these deals:

(https://i.imgur.com/nqHaI4X.jpg)

First, the thick patterned concrete will greatly limit lateral view.
Then, the glass block!

(https://i.imgur.com/4XbMAWg.jpg)

If the south-facing 'windows' were anything like that in the domino room-----

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

------or in the south-east corner------

(https://i.imgur.com/HFMTtFn.png)
=
(https://i.imgur.com/Ill1flf.jpg)

---------then one would have to wonder if Eddie was telling the truth...

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on August 06, 2018, 12:26:26 AM
Reason I ask is, photos and floor plan suggest remarkably poor visibility for someone positioned at one of these deals:

(https://i.imgur.com/nqHaI4X.jpg)

---------one would have to wonder if Eddie was telling the truth...

To say that Eddie made an unconvincing witness would be putting it mildly!

From his WC testimony:

Mr. BALL. Where were you when the President's motorcade went by?
Mr. PIPER. Now, I don't know-I was sitting there, I'm sure.
Mr. BALL. When the President went by, where were you sitting?
Mr. PIPER. Probably sitting there in the same place.

That's where he probably was when this unforgettable event took place?  ???

Luckily, however, Eddie saves the day by giving us firm evidence that this was for sure where he was at the time of the assassination------------

1. He noticed the window vibrating! The window made of thick concrete and glass block  Thumb1:

2. Mr. BALL. You say you heard one shot---you heard two shots and you got up and then what happened, where did you go?
    Mr. PIPER. I came out to the end of the counter where they make coffee there by the stand.
    Mr. BALL. You said you did it so you could see out better?
    Mr. PIPER. No, sir; I did it to see what time it was---when all this happened---to see what time it was.
    Mr. BALL. What time was it?
    Mr. PIPER. It was about between 12:30---between 12:27 and 12:30--something like that, as near as I can remember.

A perfectly natural response this to the sound of gunfire while the President is passing your place of work. Like most people, Eddie wanted to know what time it was. This tallies perfectly with the photofilmic evidence of all those witnesses out on the street who checked their watches upon hearing the shots.

Unfortunately.......

Eddie's original statement said that the time on the clock was 12:25-----------the time the President had been scheduled to pass the building.

Oops!

Question: why did Troy West not notice Eddie's presence?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on August 06, 2018, 09:25:56 PM
Friends, everytime I watch a video of Buell Wesley Frazier, I see a man carrying a very heavy emotional burden. I think Prayer Man is that burden.

Consider!

1.What Depository employee Edward Shields told the HSCA: on the morning of Nov 22 Frazier dropped LHO off at the Depository building and then went off to park his car.

2. These words from Frazier's HSCA interview:

FRAZIER: No, I didn't know that he'd been caught. But I will tell you this. I knew that he had the rifle.
MORIARTY: Hm-hmm.
FRAZIER: He did. And I said to myself, I said, 'Oh, my God.' That was the first thing right there on the [Depository] steps.

3. These words from Frazier's HSCA interview:

Frazier: (?) the shots was fired. Then the policemen run over.
Moriarty: Hm-hmm.
Frazier: You know, uh, the policemen go in the building, you know and, uh, they was all out there on that little side street right in front of the building and, you know that they was there 'cause they was - they seemed like they was everywhere. And you could actually say they - they knew the policemen that followed.
Moriarty: Hm-hmm.
Frazier: And then they all pointed out that he did it.
Moriarty: And that was after you had, uh - that you went to Irving.
Frazier: Hm-hmm.
Moriarty: This is after - you knew at that time - you knew that Oswald was being -
Frazier: Framed.
Moriarty: Did you suspect that they had that in mind?
Frazier: Uh, no. I didn't, uh - when I came home and all - we're all in - in the same room as I am sitting like this, you know? You know?
Moriarty: You asked what happened?
Frazier: I was, uh - I did knew that, uh, when it happened, you know, I was just sitting there. I was thinking that I would get fired for it. And, you know - they had the Bay of Pigs, you know? Where I think that if the Warren Commission - I think that if, uh... (TRANSCRIPT CUTS)

4. In 2015, researcher Larry Hancock asked Frazier about Prayer Man: "he has no direct recollection of anyone at all standing where PM appears to be located. He can?t make any identification from the photo"

-------------------------------
Here's what I think MAY have happened, and I must say it makes me feel great human sympathy for Frazier:

----------LHO is tricked into bringing the Carcano to work by someone offering to buy it (this 'sale' may have its origin in the scene Wed Nov 20 where Warren Caster was showing several men two rifles)
----------LHO openly tells Frazier about the rifle when they drive to work the morning of the assassination (i.e. it's in this package)
----------when the shots ring out later that day, LHO/PM and Frazier look at one another, sharing the same thought ("Oh my God, the rifle!")
----------after he leaves the Depository, Frazier goes into panic mode and seeks advice from his sister
----------He is arrested and threatened with being charged on conspiracy to shoot the President
----------Fritz bullies him into not going on the record about LHO on the steps (cf. Joe Molina?)
----------Frazier however does manage to distance himself from the rifle: curtain rods story, package too small to transport a rifle
----------this last will also remain, for decades, the pitiful best he can do under the circumstances to defend the memory of the man he knows for 100% sure did not shoot JFK.

It took many years before Frazier felt able to contradict his earlier statements and testimony and tell people about his sighting of LHO walking down Houston a few minutes after the assassination. One can only earnestly hope he can now find the even greater courage to identify Prayer Man as his old friend Lee.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on August 06, 2018, 09:26:55 PM
To say that Eddie made an unconvincing witness would be putting it mildly!

From his WC testimony:

Mr. BALL. Where were you when the President's motorcade went by?
Mr. PIPER. Now, I don't know-I was sitting there, I'm sure.
Mr. BALL. When the President went by, where were you sitting?
Mr. PIPER. Probably sitting there in the same place.

That's where he probably was when this unforgettable event took place?  ???

Luckily, however, Eddie saves the day by giving us firm evidence that this was for sure where he was at the time of the assassination------------

1. He noticed the window vibrating! The window made of thick concrete and glass block  Thumb1:

2. Mr. BALL. You say you heard one shot---you heard two shots and you got up and then what happened, where did you go?
    Mr. PIPER. I came out to the end of the counter where they make coffee there by the stand.
    Mr. BALL. You said you did it so you could see out better?
    Mr. PIPER. No, sir; I did it to see what time it was---when all this happened---to see what time it was.
    Mr. BALL. What time was it?
    Mr. PIPER. It was about between 12:30---between 12:27 and 12:30--something like that, as near as I can remember.

A perfectly natural response this to the sound of gunfire while the President is passing your place of work. Like most people, Eddie wanted to know what time it was. This tallies perfectly with the photofilmic evidence of all those witnesses out on the street who checked their watches upon hearing the shots.

Unfortunately.......

Eddie's original statement said that the time on the clock was 12:25-----------the time the President had been scheduled to pass the building.

Oops!

Question: why did Troy West not notice Eddie's presence?

And! Why did Eddie not notice Troy's presence?  :o
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 07, 2018, 01:50:27 AM
Larry stop trolling, man up and take a guess who I meant by "Sarah"?  Or have you really no detective skills at all?
Also, why would Duncan suggest that Brian have these same women look at "scarflady" after the interview was already in the bag?
Why would Brian even show them "scarflady" at that stage at all, when he had no reason to?
Go listen to Brian's interview again and watch out for who he credits the enhancement to, when both ladies look and comment on it.
I know it's not easy listening but still please make the effort because your memory is obviously failing you and I look forward to your apology.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 07, 2018, 02:43:11 AM
Yeah Brian, just like the 10-20 eyewitnesses that testified(?) that they(who?) saw(?) LHO on the landing???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 07, 2018, 03:12:17 AM
So not only do you not listen carefully, you don't read too good either.
I haven't the foggiest idea what your point is, ever hear of a lineup? That's a fair system, not bringing in one person and saying, "here she is".
You cannot seriously be suggesting that impartialty is bad, so exactly what did you read Popeye?

*Corrected spelling before I'm critized for that too, biteme.jpg
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 07, 2018, 06:50:31 PM
BWF "In the shadows", that's what you like?
"I was back in the shadows[with her]" but it's only his head that's in the shadows, so that could apply to the person to his left in Darnell(or Shelley in Wiegman).
He still thinks that's the only reason he cannot be seen in Altgens.
In that same interview he goes down to the first step, then he hears the hollering woman, then he's back up on the landing when he turns to Sarah.  In one interview he talks to her but in this one he does not, they just look at each other and "didn't have anything to say"(do you like that part or not?).  Why does he mentally picture himself "down on the first step" when he hears her?  Perhaps because on the landing he could not!
In one interview he turns to Sarah to say "how pretty Jackie looked", in another, he just thinks it to himself.  How does one choose which is correct?  I think you've made yourself clear on this already, "whatever best suits my purposes".  Perhaps he was in a world of his own during the Darnell timeframe and I refuse to boost the value of witnesses to support or debunk some damned theory...

Finding "Calvery" in Darnell is a superb find, the same woman seen lining up on Elm in Zapruder, I get it, after what you wrote I looked into it, it's great, two women ran directly for the TSBD and got there before Baker reacted.  The movements in Darnell and Couch are a wee bit clearer now but you take it way too far.  What it does not do is let us see inside Frazier's mind and it certainly does not tell us that these women were still screaming when Couch and Darnell reacted to Baker.
Roy Truly may have also reacted to the women, that's what he was walking back there for, that he never mentioned or recalled it for us exactly, doesn't rule it out.
Everything we see in Darnell and Couch around the TSBD may be related and caused by these women(I said maybe, baby), the way people are moving, not to the noises they all seemed to have ignored but y these hyserical woman but at some point they had to have stopped screaming.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 09, 2018, 01:22:02 AM
Brian,
I've said I liked it before, to you, at least two times in this thread already, I just don't go on about it, reviewing your thread yesterday I thought the find deserved a simple clarification.
I'm convinced Darnell and Couch did react to Baker but I don't uderstand why you have a problem with that, you didn't say.
Watch Darnell react to Bill Newman at the very start of this. Exactly the same thing IMO, a simple reaction shot, he did the same with Roger Craig in the RRY, the same with people turning toward the knoll. Watching, reacting.

Your interpretation of what Frazier is thinking is only one possibility, personally, as should be clear by now,  I don't put too much faith in his ability to recall exactly what happened and when.  Good luck with your theory.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 09, 2018, 10:53:47 PM
Yes, all images are original and authenticated in advance by Gary Mack, any forgeries or tampering result in immeadiate suspension(I guess you're safe eh).
!00% legit straight from Darnell to your damned eyes.
(https://i.imgur.com/MG7ZnVL.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Frederick Clements on August 11, 2018, 02:57:09 PM
If PM is not Oswald,why is the TV company that owns the original PM footage refusing to release the footage? What are they trying to hide?

Fred
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on August 11, 2018, 03:50:01 PM
If PM is not Oswald,why is the TV company that owns the original PM footage refusing to release the footage? What are they trying to hide?

Fred
As far as I am aware, via Bart Kamp's excellent research on the whereabouts of the original Darnell film, the TV company claims not to have the original film, so......

Please post the recorded verifiable statement that confirms your above quoted statement.



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 12, 2018, 09:25:01 PM
The "Wiegman's run" segment last 27s and as he stops filming the Hesters, Couch and Darnell start.
Myers says 3.6s before Z313 for start of Wiegman but there's a chance he's off by one second at least(but not 4-5).
Let's call it 2.5s before Z313, runtime of 27s means Couch and Darnell start at 24-25s after Z313.

Okay now Calvery's run.
She could probably do it in around 12s but @6s after Z313 in Wiegman she's still in the same general area on Elm(her group had stepped back and pulled east but no real sign of anyone running away yet).  So start a 6s and give her another 12s to reach somewhere west of the landing where she or the other woman could be heard by not just Lovelady and Shelley but officers Smith and Baker.
So, if I'm correct, the theory is that @18s after Z313 some combination of  Lovelady, Shelley and Smith react to two women, at least one of whom was screaming and they approach her.

Smith claimed the woman said, "they're shooting at him from the bushes", not heard by either of the two Bill's, he is seen in Couch well ahead of BS/BL stalking his way to Elm St proper.  So Smith could have talked to her alone, the two Bill's come next, probably overheard some of the conversation, they then follow Smith.
How long for that conversation, 5s?

So, now we're getting close, Couch starts @ 24-25s and the event thus far has taken 23s but as we know Smith and the two Bills are seconds away from Calvery, who is now on the steps for the start of Darnell(and therefor Couch).  If she repeats the story for the two Bills it doesn't work, there's no time and she hardly has had time to tell those on the steps by the time Couch and Darnell react to Baker and start filming.

This is in no way an attempt to knock the story as a whole, I think it's golden, here's my attempt to get Frazier involved.
Women run from the horror toward a little safety at the TSBD where they work, Smith hear's them coming and heads directly for them, he meets them east of the steps and out of sight of BWF but not BL/BS, the latter two men head for the meeting and overhear part of the converstaion and the urgency of it, Smith heads for Elm, hand on holster, Shelly and Lovelady follow.  Seconds later the two women arrive on the steps and tell those there what has happened.  "Action!". In Darnell we see BWF attempting to hear them for the first time, where as others who could see the cop run up to the women and probably see one of them point that same cop to the west, have not only all tutned to look in that direction but some like Evans have already ran for the light pole to check it out.
Think about it, Why is Evans already at the lampost and Frazier still trying to work it all out?
Frazier likes to claim he had the best spot in the whole plaza, not for this event he didn't.  Positioning was the key for an early reaction to Calvery, that and/or a little added awareness.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 12, 2018, 09:50:00 PM
Fraziers' WC testimony is of little help, that's why it's not quoted that often, again Shelley and Lovelady had took off before he hears the news.
Should I even bother? OK WTH.
"Billy and them had walked down that way, I hadn't moved."
"Right before I went back[back inside the building for lunch as he said just before and after this] somebody had come and told us in a low hollering that they'd shot Kennedy.
Then I went right back in the building.".

Anyone want to claim this is an accurate telling of his involvement told 6months after the event?
Why not? Hears the knews and goes inside to eat his lunch, pretty much the same as he told Mack.
You'll note he didn't bring his sandwiches outside but sat there alone in the basement as per, deliberating his next move perhaps.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 12, 2018, 10:37:34 PM
That's a fair point, the woman Smith spoke to doesn't have to be Calvery or her friend but from Occum's POV it would seem most likely, also if they were running toward safety what better sight than a cop in uniform?
Screaming woman(which had to be near the TSBD for them to hear) mentioned by both Smith and Baker for the WC.
You think Burney is the one further back and still running in Couch, that's okay I think but she's hardly on(or from what I can see, has come from) a collision course with Smith.

Again, like I mentioned with Frazier, find me another interview other than Mack where he mentions the position of BL/BS when these women come up.
For Mack, he said they had already left and for the WC it sounds the same as I just quoted above, check the testimony if you doubt me, they left, I stood still, these women came up.

Let me remind myself what Lovelady said.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 12, 2018, 11:58:32 PM
Okay so Lovelady recalls it somewhat differently to Frazier(what's new?), so why do you choose BL now when your little addition to the Calvery event leans so much on BWF and the way he himself remembers it(even though he never quite keeps his story straight)?
7mins into the second part of the Mack interview, just like he told the WC, shots> Lovelady leaves the steps> women came running up.
CSPAN Pt II @7mins.
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)

This way and the way I laid it out works better, Fraziers reaction was seperate, slower and to another event/telling and that might explain the folded arms and relaxed posture of him and PM, they haven't cottoned on yet.
Anyway, watch the first 7mins of Pt II next and remind yourself of why this reliance on testimony is such a farce.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on August 13, 2018, 09:53:14 PM
Duncan didn't see the buttons, Duncan INVENTED the buttons as a prank directed at members of another venue.
You latched on to my creation.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kmflX9B_znM/VfzhvqK01eI/AAAAAAABHb8/EYm2Z9hcpJg/s1600/Duncan-MacRae-Photo.png)

          The above is an example of the Danger of Altering JFK Assassination Images. Whether looking at JFK Assassination film footage, still frames, or photos the question consistently arises as to whether the image has been Cropped, Colorized, or flat-out Altered.  Innocent intentions can lead to misconceptions at a later point in time.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on August 13, 2018, 09:56:57 PM
          The above is an example of the Danger of Altering JFK Assassination Images. Whether looking at JFK Assassination film footage, still frames, or photos the question consistently arises as to whether the image has been Cropped, Colorized, or flat-out Altered.  Innocent intentions can lead to misconceptions at a later point in time.

Quote
Innocent intentions can lead to misconceptions at a later point in time.

Seriously, if you can't see that Duncan's presentation is an obvious joke than you have no right to analyse any image and that goes for you and Buttons.

JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on August 13, 2018, 10:22:34 PM
Seriously, if you can't see that Duncan's presentation is an obvious joke than you have no right to analyse any image and that goes for you and Buttons.

JohnM

  What might be "obvious" is subject to the interpretation of the viewer. An ALTERED JFK Assassination Image for whatever reason is an accident waiting to happen.  All ALTERED JFK Assassination Images should be labeled as such. Requesting this be done is Not like asking for ice water in hell.   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on August 13, 2018, 10:25:16 PM
  What might be "obvious" is subject to the interpretation of the viewer.

Quote
What might be "obvious" is subject to the interpretation of the viewer.

Exactly, if you think that jpeg artifacts are buttons then you have no right to analyse anything.

JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 14, 2018, 02:11:05 AM
Seriously, if you can't see that Duncan's presentation is an obvious joke than you have no right to analyse any image and that goes for you and Buttons.

JohnM

  What might be "obvious" is subject to the interpretation of the viewer. An ALTERED JFK Assassination Image for whatever reason is an accident waiting to happen.  All ALTERED JFK Assassination Images should be labeled as such. Requesting this be done is Not like asking for ice water in hell.   

Good point Royell, and I do agree!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 14, 2018, 03:17:07 AM
If PM is not Oswald,why is the TV company that owns the original PM footage refusing to release the footage? What are they trying to hide?

Fred
I am not exactly sure what is meant by "original PM footage", but the TSBD Elm St Entrance Portal area image, as seen during and/or or just seconds after the shooting that resulted in the JohnKennedySr Assassination and JohnConnallyJr CriticalWounding, was filmed by a hand-held VideoImage/MotionPictureCamera in 1963, as the CameraPerson rode in/on a moving Motorcade ConvertibleVehicle. And, it appears as though any PersonImages and/or ObjectImages seen in the portal area were background, and not focus points.
Not much to see, and even less to hide, IMO.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on August 14, 2018, 08:12:58 AM
Let me clear one thing up.
I have never, ever, altered an image without saying so, and without giving a reason for any alteration(s)
The original posted image being discussed with the imaginary Buttons was not altered in any way apart from the addition of the arrows.
When I used the words "Invention" and "Creation" in my post, I was referring to my imagination, creating and changing the artifacts to portray the perception in the viewer's mind of the artifacts being Buttons.
It obviously worked for some gullibles of the community.


 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on August 14, 2018, 03:47:42 PM
Well Buttons, that counts you out straight away.

Anyway, a good detective/analyst would realize that psychedelic spacing of buttons wasn't a thing until the late 60's and besides I don't think that the Old Lady appears to be that radical, Maaaann!

(https://s15.postimg.cc/dozxnj1bv/duncan_s_giggles.jpg)

JohnM

       Get off your high horse. It is Not for You to grade/rank anyone that is merely looking at or possibly examining a JFK Assassination Image. Your pompous evaluations of those that are interested in this Unsolved 54+ year old case do absolutely Nothing to further the investigation.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on August 14, 2018, 07:31:01 PM
It has taken you years to learn to post an image. I'm glad to see that you computer and/or mouse is now able to post images.

Where?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on August 14, 2018, 07:40:24 PM
Where?

My mistake Duncan, he reposted an image supplied by John Mytton. Thought it was too good to be true.

Duncan, can you do nothing to stop this idiot posting lies?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Logan on August 14, 2018, 11:20:43 PM

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on August 15, 2018, 08:53:10 PM
No, Ray is obviously referring to, and intimating, that the aforementioned Pixels, not Buttons, are on the neck and elsewhere.

Thank you for that, Duncan. Obviously, Brian has a problem understanding English. Maybe it isn't his first language.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on August 15, 2018, 09:58:59 PM
This guy has totally lost it. Even Duncan can't show him his problem.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 16, 2018, 01:06:51 AM
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwa1.jpg)
See the face?  That alone is proof it is a real face, how could you be so stupid as to deny it?

1963 saw the arrival of a new french novel destined to be a big film and a later TV hit, see any resemblance?
(https://i.imgur.com/rPoYm3X.jpg)
That's right, there was an ape loose in the plaza.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 16, 2018, 01:11:12 AM
This broad was so ugly, after JFK saw her and the shooting started, he ordered Greer to stop!
"How ugly is she?"
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 16, 2018, 01:51:54 AM
Poor images are more fun.
Exhibit #1
(https://i.imgur.com/wgNnleR.png)

Besides the joke, there's a serious point here, this image is still far better than our PM evidence.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 16, 2018, 07:04:53 PM
A quite simple question for/request from MrRayMitcham, is MrMitcham's conclusion regarding the proper identity of PrayerPersonImage as seen pictured/filmed at approximately 12:31pm CST 11/22/'63 standing on the stairway landing and near the front door Elm St entrance to the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building!
Over a period of time, MrMitcham, you seem to dispute anything indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing MsSarahDeanStanton, or any other female, and considering sufficient evidence is available as proof that MsStanton was on the stairway landing at the time of the JFK Assassination and subsequent filming of the portal area, I am curious as to your identity conclusion, as well as what prompts said conclusion(?)


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 17, 2018, 12:36:39 AM
Brian,
I already pointed you toward those three successive Wiegman frames
that clearly show your "women's face" is in the wrong place.
Alan went one further... and clearly showed your "woman" is even on the wrong step.

Here's 'Prayer Woman's face' in context! (Credit: Sandy Larsen Thumb1:)
(https://i.imgur.com/6MyJdHE.gif)
'She' is at about the same height as Lower Lovelady.
Problem!
This means that 'Prayer Woman With A Face' is a head lower than... Prayer Man!
(https://i.imgur.com/lSh5jNI.jpg)
Obvious Solution!
The 'face' is in fact Prayer Man's neck & chin.

It is in the wrong place, unless it's elephantwoman.
It also has a monsterous forehead like rhinogirl, that's been cropped out for obvious reasons.
So "anatomically correct" my big left, six toed, purple, webbed foot.

Just keep getting people to admit it looks like a face, that's all you need to win.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on August 17, 2018, 01:45:06 AM

Just keep getting people to admit it looks like a face,


(https://s15.postimg.cc/jp04ybgdn/faces_ambushedbuilding_zps9cd34cd0.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 17, 2018, 02:44:51 AM
0.0!

Not anatomically correct the evidence says and puh-lease, walls of text you give me?  Ai vey.

Watch the gif above carefully, your "women's face" is level with BL's who's actually on the 5th step lol, two down from the landing,
what's really amazing is that you haven't dropped this element of it yet.
Only looks like a woman to you because "she" has "long bushy hair" but your prime suspect has short hair lol
Relatives tell you it's not her, you will not except it.
Your "forensics" led you to believe this was an overlay of a real picture of Oswald on PM and screamed "He's too skinny, game over".
(https://2img.net/h/s6.postimg.cc/6kqwg3o31/100_percent_nl.jpg)

That's as far as I read.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 17, 2018, 02:53:21 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/9YbFyo7.jpg)
Quotes... taken from this very thread, context is all yours.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Taylor on August 17, 2018, 07:48:39 AM
Prayerperson looks to be taking a photograph.  Oswald was an avid photographer.  It really surprises me that he wouldn't try to capture the moment.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on August 17, 2018, 07:53:24 AM
Prayerperson looks to be taking a photograph.  Oswald was an avid photographer.  It really surprises me that he wouldn't try to capture the moment.

Oh yeah, Oswald witnessed the entire moment while looking down the length of his rifle.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uoVEWyaRGtg/VXy3Y_kgoRI/AAAAAAABGhY/gjy_SwZB-No/s1600/SN-POV.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Taylor on August 17, 2018, 09:21:50 AM
Oh yeah, Oswald witnessed the entire moment while looking down the length of his rifle.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uoVEWyaRGtg/VXy3Y_kgoRI/AAAAAAABGhY/gjy_SwZB-No/s1600/SN-POV.jpg)

JohnM

IMO with the way the boxes and window were positioned, it would probably be impossible to use the scope you show.  Iron sights may be possible for Z313 and Z330, not Z224 or earlier.

(https://i.imgur.com/vyJ3YD2.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on August 17, 2018, 09:48:44 AM
IMO with the way the boxes and window were positioned, it would probably be impossible to use the scope you show.  Iron sights may be possible for Z313 and Z330, not Z224 or earlier.

Quote
not Z224 or earlier.

Why did you choose Z224, can you demonstrate your methodology and perhaps provide a drawing or a simple 3D model?

JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Taylor on August 17, 2018, 09:59:17 AM
Why did you choose Z224, can you demonstrate your methodology and perhaps provide a drawing or a simple 3D model?

JohnM

John, you're pretty senior in the LN Company, how did you get stuck on the graveyard shift?  Z224 is the company's official position on when both JFK and JC were hit.  Just trying to work with your data.   No don't have any charts, just eyeballing.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on August 17, 2018, 10:06:15 AM
John, you're pretty senior in the LN Company, how did you get stuck on the graveyard shift?  Z224 is the company's official position on when both JFK and JC were hit.  Just trying to work with your data.   No don't have any charts, just eyeballing.

Quote
John, you're pretty senior in the LN Company, how did you get stuck on the graveyard shift?

I'm trying to buy a boat so the time and a half comes in handy.

Quote
Z224 is the company's official position on when both JFK and JC were hit.

Yep, they taught me that in SBF 101!

Quote
Just trying to work with your data.

You gotta start somewhere.

Quote
No don't have any charts, just eyeballing.

Fair enough.

JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Taylor on August 17, 2018, 10:14:16 AM
I'm trying to buy a boat so the time and a half comes in handy.

JohnM

Sweet.  My dreams of retiring on a cruising sailboat haven't really worked out.  Maybe in the next life.  I used to be an expert navigator (celestial etc.).  Now you can buy most of what I know in a $100 black box.  Good luck. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on August 17, 2018, 11:13:12 AM
Sweet.  My dreams of retiring on a cruising sailboat haven't really worked out.  Maybe in the next life.  I used to be an expert navigator (celestial etc.).  Now you can buy most of what I know in a $100 black box.  Good luck.

Quote
Sweet.

Yep it would be nice.

Quote
My dreams of retiring on a cruising sailboat haven't really worked out.

Sorry to hear.

Quote
I used to be an expert navigator (celestial etc.).  Now you can buy most of what I know in a $100 black box.

What a pisser.

Quote
Good luck.

You too.

JohnM

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on August 17, 2018, 11:18:22 AM
A quite simple question/request for MrRayMitcham, is MrMitcham's conclusion regarding the proper identity of PrayerPersonImage as seen pictured/filmed at approximately 12:31pm CST 11/22/'63 standing on the stairway landing and near the front door Elm St entrance to the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building?
I might answer your question if it was a proper question. What does "is MrMitcham's conclusion regarding the proper identity of PrayerPersonImage as seen pictured/filmed at approximately 12:31pm CST 11/22/'63 standing on the stairway landing and near the front door Elm St entrance to the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building?"mean?
Quote

Over a period of time, MrMitcham, you seem to dispute anything indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing MsSarahDeanStanton, or any other female, and considering sufficient evidence is available as proof that MsStanton was on the stairway landing at the time of the JFK Assassination and subsequent filming of the portal area, I am curious as to your identity conclusion, as well as what prompts said conclusion.[/size][/font][/i]

I have made no conclusion about the identity of Prayerman/woman/person, the only things I object to are the crazy theories some of our posters have.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 17, 2018, 06:10:43 PM
I might answer your question if it was a proper question. What does "is MrMitcham's conclusion regarding the proper identity of PrayerPersonImage as seen pictured/filmed at approximately 12:31pm CST 11/22/'63 standing on the stairway landing and near the front door Elm St entrance to the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building?"mean?
I have made no conclusion about the identity of Prayerman/woman/person, the only things I object to are the crazy theories some of our posters have.

It makes sense to me MrMitcham, when reading the complete sentence, which you did not quote completely. But, if you dispute the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, I have yet to see, or maybe I missed, your posted comment expressing said dispute. 
I suppose, however, it would appear that an identity dispute would be better served if an identity conclusion had been reached, but that's just my opinion. In any event, thanks for the response.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Taylor on August 17, 2018, 08:34:09 PM
it was a dude taking pictures with  camera, as best as i can tell.  what do you think, Brian?

I posted this earlier and fully concur.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on August 17, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I posted this earlier and fully concur.
i know, i've been telling him this for years, but he just keeps on writing........ and writing.......... and writing........ and who reads it?  do you?  i know i don't.  oh, a word here or there, but it's just all too much.  it's an OCD thing, to be sure, dude.  Brian needs to enroll in creative writing classes, or something.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 18, 2018, 01:40:35 AM
Prayerperson looks to be taking a photograph.  Oswald was an avid photographer.  It really surprises me that he wouldn't try to capture the moment.

There's a nice moment related to that in Gary Mack's interview of Buell Frazier.
First let me tell you one of Vince Bugliosi's favorite courtroom jokes(told in his virtual prosecution of OJ);
Man takes his neighbor to court because his dog bit him.
In the dock the neighbor gives his defence,
"My dog is always in my yard, nowhere else
and he's always on a leesh,
he's never bit ayone in his life and besides, he doesn't even have any teeth and lastly,
I don't even own a dog."

Frasier went a similar route when Gary asked him did he think of taking a photo of the parade.
"I didn't know the parade was coming past the bulding" he said,
"neither did I know we'd be given time of to watch it
and besides... I didn't even own a camera".
True story.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on August 19, 2018, 02:24:55 PM
It makes sense to me MrMitcham, when reading the complete sentence, which you did not quote completely. But, if you dispute the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, I have yet to see, or maybe I missed, your posted comment expressing said dispute. 
I suppose, however, it would appear that an identity dispute would be better served if an identity conclusion had been reached, but that's just my opinion. In any event, thanks for the response.


Larry, your complete sentence is thus
"A quite simple question/request for MrRayMitcham, is MrMitcham's conclusion regarding the proper identity of PrayerPersonImage as seen pictured/filmed at approximately 12:31pm CST 11/22/'63 standing on the stairway landing and near the front door Elm St entrance to the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building?"
Is MrMitcham's conclusion...is what?  There is no  question. Did you omit a "what" as in "what is"...?

Maybe if you stopped wondering as you were wandering, you could ask me a proper question.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 21, 2018, 07:23:54 PM
Here she is again, Larry, courtesy of Chris Davidson.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Scarfladychrisd.gif)
I don't know the time of this short clip, as Chris didn't provide any further info along with the Video clip.

After observation, I have to conclude a resemblance exists between LadyImage seen on the stairs, and PrayerWomanImage, but also ScarfLadyImage as well. Maybe the same person, or maybe three separate LadyImages, seen at different times on the stairway/landing of the TSBD Bldg Elm St Entrance.

Admittedly just a guess, but I would estimate a time frame of 1:15pm to 2:30pm, CST on 11/22/'63.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on August 22, 2018, 09:58:57 AM
After observation, I have to conclude a resemblance exists between LadyImage seen on the stairs, and PrayerWomanImage, but also ScarfLadyImage as well. Maybe the same person, or maybe three separate LadyImages, seen at different times on the stairway/landing of the TSBD Bldg Elm St Entrance.
I still say it was a dude taking pictures with a camera, 8mm perhaps.  he might have come off the street to get into the shadow for a better shot of the prez' goin' by.  just an educated guess.  not any more outlandish that writing paragraph upon paragraph, heaping embarrassment upon himself.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Matthew Finch on August 22, 2018, 02:25:41 PM
Well Buttons, that counts you out straight away.

Anyway, a good detective/analyst would realize that psychedelic spacing of buttons wasn't a thing until the late 60's and besides I don't think that the Old Lady appears to be that radical, Maaaann!

(https://s15.postimg.cc/dozxnj1bv/duncan_s_giggles.jpg)

JohnM

Not sure about anyone else, but those 'buttons' sure don't half make that cardigan look a bit over-sized for whoever is wearing it... Was this sort of thing available back in the early 60s?

(https://www.econo-air.com/images/2018-03-13/51zFobixoPL.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on August 22, 2018, 02:37:17 PM
Not sure about anyone else, but those 'buttons' sure don't half make that cardigan look a bit over-sized for whoever is wearing it... Was this sort of thing available back in the early 60s?
??? Yes

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Skaggs_12.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Matthew Finch on August 22, 2018, 03:16:27 PM
 :D Ta, that's what I get being a (relative) youngster (and not checking out every photograph).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 22, 2018, 04:41:02 PM
After observation, I have to conclude a resemblance exists between LadyImage seen on the stairs, and PrayerWomanImage, but also ScarfLadyImage as well. Maybe the same person, or maybe three separate LadyImages, seen at different times on the stairway/landing of the TSBD Bldg Elm St Entrance.


I still say it was a dude taking pictures with a camera, 8mm perhaps.  he might have come off the street to get into the shadow for a better shot of the prez' goin' by.  just an educated guess.  not any more outlandish that writing paragraph upon paragraph, heaping embarrassment upon himself.

The Post/Reply you seem to have quoted, where I had made an observation about the image of a person that I referred to as "LadyImage seen on the stairs", you "still say it was a dude taking pictures with a camera, 8mm perhaps.  he might have come off the street to get into the shadow for a better shot of the prez' goin by.  just an educated guess.  not any more outlandish that writing paragraph upon paragraph, heaping embarrassment upon himself."? ???

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 22, 2018, 08:52:39 PM
In regards to my post #1119

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,562.msg21555.html#msg21555

I found those clips posted on another link by Duncan MacRae.
I believe this is Prayer Woman.
I used to think it might be Oswald.

However I posted a frame that I believe is Oswald but there was no response to it.
...the guy in the bottom right with his back to the camera-
 


 (https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/mentesana-1.jpg?w=487&h=361)
The PersonImage alluded to appears to represent a white male, with dark hair, and wearing a jacket. My size guess is about 5'10", 160lbs, and I see nothing indicative of said JacketPersonImage representing LeeHarveyOswald, and as well nothing to me indicates PrayerPerson Image to be aka JacketPersonImage. Although I do wonder, as I wander, what prompts said comparison(s)?
Admittedly, although I did not express an identity opinion, I had previously thought I recognized JacketPersonImage as being the husband of a couple that had gone to DealeyPlaza to view the PresidentialMotorcade. However, the jacket is problematic in said identification..
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on August 23, 2018, 12:04:03 PM
When you zoom in that close to poor imagery, you see patterns all the time but how could you possibly know this when you've never manipulated an image in your life?
"By definition" you've disqualified yourself.
I think we should start testing your extraordinary abiities.
Perhaps albert should sell pins with the word 'HOAX' on them instead of, say, I LIKE IKE. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on August 23, 2018, 01:12:56 PM
Perhaps albert should sell pins with the word 'HOAX' on them instead of, say, I LIKE IKE.

I thought button with HOAX on might be more apt, Mark.
(https://s19.postimg.cc/al4kw3epr/button.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/al4kw3epr/)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 23, 2018, 09:06:24 PM
Yes, all images are original and authenticated in advance by Gary Mack, any forgeries or tampering result in immeadiate suspension(I guess you're safe eh).
!00% legit straight from Darnell to your damned eyes.
(https://i.imgur.com/MG7ZnVL.jpg)

I am certainly glad that this image is original, as posted, and was authenticated in advance by now deceased GaryMack, as per BarryPollard. I was beginning to wonder, as I wandered, if just maybe an enhancement of sorts had been performed, and/or something added. Possibly?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 24, 2018, 04:10:12 AM
Maybe Michael, another "LeeHarveyOswaldTrialMovie" can be made, and maybe LHO's defense can be based on the cartoon model, uhh, I mean virtual entrance portal, with the added cartoon characters, uhh, uhh, I mean inserted mannequins.
Don'tcha see Michael?


https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,562.msg22837.html#msg22837



For whatever tis meant...twas not meant from me... ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 24, 2018, 04:31:38 AM
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,562.msg22765.html#msg22765


(https://i.imgur.com/RaVUWs6.jpg)

Tis when all else fails...To last resort...Resort to last...To resort last... ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 24, 2018, 05:11:27 AM
Larry, I sense you need help, please speak to someone asap before it's too late.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on August 24, 2018, 10:49:41 PM

Hey Brian;
When I observe the PrayerPersonImage enhancement attributed to ChrisDavidson, I believe from a DaveWeigmanFilmStill, the face appears to be that of a female. However, I am unable to discern a satisfactory resemblance to any known SarahStantonImage as pictured. But, 'unable to discern' means just that, nothing more, nothing less. Accordingly, anything I observe upon viewing PrayerPersonImage, is from JimmyDarnellFilm, unenhanced. And, said observation, added to TSBD Bldg Elm St Entrance landing and stairway occupants' and eyewitnesses' testimony, is just cause for me to conclude PrayerPersonImage represents a female, and said testimony, along with other statements, indicates that there is reliable evidence for SarahDeanStanton to be the person represented by PrayerPersonImage. Additionally, said testimony offers valid evidence as proof that LeeHarveyOswald was not on the stairway/landing as filmed at 12:30pm CST.

Therefor, my evidence based conclusion(s) that PrayerPersonImage represents SarahDeanStanton place(s) no reliance on any PrayerPersonImage ButtonsImages, seen or unseen. And, as well I place no reliance on any presently available PrayerPersonImage facial feature enhancement, whether on film or photographed.

For clarification, I do not at all wish to debate any PrayerPersonImage FacialFeature Enhancement, or ButtonImages, seen or unseen. 'Unable to discern' means only that and nothing more, nothing less. And as well, 'to place no reliance' means just that, and nothing more, nothing less.
Well we're glad you 'clarified' that for us, Larry.  I always enjoy reading your entries. Reminds me of Bill Burroughs
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 25, 2018, 02:52:22 AM

Hey Brian;
When I observe the PrayerPersonImage enhancement attributed to ChrisDavidson, I believe from a DaveWeigmanFilmStill, the face appears to be that of a female. However, I am unable to discern a satisfactory resemblance to any known SarahStantonImage as pictured. But, 'unable to discern' means just that, nothing more, nothing less. Accordingly, anything I observe upon viewing PrayerPersonImage, is from JimmyDarnellFilm, unenhanced. And, said observation, added to TSBD Bldg Elm St Entrance landing and stairway occupants' and eyewitnesses' testimony, is just cause for me to conclude PrayerPersonImage represents a female, and said testimony, along with other statements, indicates that there is reliable evidence for SarahDeanStanton to be the person represented by PrayerPersonImage. Additionally, said testimony offers valid evidence as proof that LeeHarveyOswald was not on the stairway/landing as filmed at 12:30pm CST.
 
Therefor, my evidence based conclusion(s) that PrayerPersonImage represents SarahDeanStanton place(s) no reliance on any PrayerPersonImage ButtonsImages, seen or unseen. And, as well I place no reliance on any presently available PrayerPersonImage facial feature enhancement, whether on film or photographed.

For clarification, I do not at all wish to debate any PrayerPersonImage FacialFeature Enhancement, or ButtonImages, seen or unseen. 'Unable to discern' means only that and nothing more, nothing less. And as well, 'to place no reliance' means just that, and nothing more, nothing less.
Well we're glad you 'clarified' that for us, Larry.  I always enjoy reading your entries. Reminds me of Bill Burroughs

 ???

Well we're glad you 'clarified' that for us, Larry.  I always enjoy reading your entries. Reminds me of Bill Burroughs
::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 25, 2018, 04:58:52 AM
 :o
Larry, I sense you need help, please speak to someone asap before it's too late.
???    ::)
         
Walk:.....................
......................................
.......
>:(
;)
.....................................
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 29, 2018, 08:23:28 PM
As I have previously mentioned my conclusion(s) about PrayerPersonImage's ButtonIssue, and as well the ChrisDavidson FacialFeatureEnhancementIssue, there is no need to re-address said issues here.
However, considering valid evidence has been produced indicative of female SarahDeanStanton as being the person represented by PPI, I have to wonder, as I wander, why anyone would continuously claim that PPI represents a "dude" taking pictures with a camera, when they have not produced any evidence indicative of PPI representing a "dude" taking pictures with a camera?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Logan on September 02, 2018, 07:18:57 PM
Can't be, I'm not seeing any buttons. 8)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on September 03, 2018, 08:03:46 AM
As I recall, the PrayerPersonImage IdentityIssue began when 'someone' decided to declare the said Image represented LeeHarveyOswald. So, where is the evidence for that declaration? I have yet to recognize anything in the PrayerPersonImage indicative of any male, and certainly nothing to indicate LeeHarveyOswald. And, testimony by eyewitnesses indicates he was not there as filmed at about 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63. Testimony does place two otherwise un-identified females on the landing at that time, and additional evidence indicates SarahDeanStanton as the actual person represented by PrayerPersonImage.
Should anyone choose to not believe the evidence, that is their choice, but I would hope any claims that LeeHarveyOswald is the person represented by PrayerPersonImage should require inclusion of provided reliable evidence.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on September 03, 2018, 10:52:37 AM
Ok, apart from yourself proving it to yourself, who else has proven that the mystery person is Sarah Stanton?

WFFA Footage Clip Converted To Gif, possibly showing the same Prayer Person mystery person with obese right forearm as seen in Darnell and Wiegman :)

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ppgif.gif)(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pmyellow.gif)
Darnell/Wiegman Composite Comparison
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ppfast.gif)(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ppmedium.gif)
In my humble opinion, it is also the dude that was taking pictures with the camera.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on September 04, 2018, 05:26:44 PM
Has this been speculated before, anywhere?

Is This The Prayer Man Woman In This Poor Quality WFFA TV Footage?


My first reaction regarding the possible identity of the PersonImage as seen on the TSBD entrance landing/stairs in the "Poor Quality WFFA TV Footage", was that of a gentleman seen some minutes after 12:30pm, standing in/near that same position on other clearer film/photos. The MalePersonImage as seen appeared to be standing with his left foot on the landing and his right foot on the first step down, wearing a suit, not very tall, and facing basically east towards Houston St. I recall seeing a reference to said MalePersonImage indicating his identity as a Mr Evans, but I am unsure about his positive identification. And, so far I have not seen/heard/read anything contradicting said first reaction.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on September 04, 2018, 07:52:26 PM
I am not trying to argue any point, but I do believe that any reliable identification of the PersonImage seen on the landing area in the WFFA-TV VideoFootage will require much more evidence than what is available on said VideoFootage. For that reason, I have to conclude the timeframe knowledge as being essential in development of any reliable provable identity conclusion.
If the timeframe is prior to 12:30pm CST, on 11/22/'63, a possibility exists for LeeHarveyOswald to be the person represented by said PersonImage. However, reliable provable evidence indicates that he cannot be said person at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63, and as well, at anytime after 12:45pm, CST.
In any event, it is also very unlikely that LHO was filmed/photographed on the stairs/landing in the 12:30pm-12:45pm CST timeframe as well.


For possible reference and/or timeframe-the MalePersonImage seen from his shoulders and up on the west side of the stairway hand-rail.
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=5&pos=18
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 04, 2018, 11:59:27 PM
...reliable provable evidence indicates that he cannot be said person at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63, and as well, at anytime after 12:45pm, CST...

There's no such thing in testimony, if it proved anything at all there would be no point to this forum.
Avoiding this giant cowpat in your logic proves to me that you're just not being honest.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on September 05, 2018, 01:02:34 AM
I am not trying to argue any point, but I do believe that any reliable identification of the PersonImage seen on the landing area in the WFFA-TV VideoFootage will require much more evidence than what is available on said VideoFootage. For that reason, I have to conclude the timeframe knowledge as being essential in development of any reliable provable identity conclusion.
If the timeframe is prior to 12:30pm CST, on 11/22/'63, a possibility exists for LeeHarveyOswald to be the person represented by said PersonImage. However, reliable provable evidence indicates that he cannot be said person at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63, and as well, at anytime after 12:45pm, CST.
In any event, it is also very unlikely that LHO was filmed/photographed on the stairs/landing in the 12:30pm-12:45pm CST timeframe as well.


For possible reference and/or timeframe-the MalePersonImage seen from his shoulders and up on the west side of the stairway hand-rail.
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=5&pos=18


 
There's no such thing in testimony, if it proved anything at all there would be no point to this forum.
Avoiding this giant cowpat in your logic proves to me that you're just not being honest.


 ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 05, 2018, 01:18:57 AM
There's no such thing in testimony, if it proved anything at all there would be no point to this forum.
Avoiding this giant cowpat in your logic proves to me that you're just not being honest.

Give yourself a week and try coming back with some kind of defence of your archaic attitude.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 05, 2018, 01:38:17 AM
To me it's obvious it's the young reporter but proving it is another thing.
Hand on hip, someone like Carl Edward Jones still in position on steps, some cop leaning over to speak with Sawyer, that's what I see in the footage so...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-B3gmrtFRYmU/U9jnYwq3juI/AAAAAAAARjs/EfgjtU-QlNY/s1600/Murray_TSBD3.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Anthony Clayden on September 05, 2018, 01:41:41 AM
Can't help feel that this thread reminds of Douglas Adams, description of the philosophers objection to Deep Thought. To paraphase from memory, "What is point of us spending all night argueing over whether God does or does not exist, only for this computer to give us his address in the morning"

What is the point of 188 pages argueing over blurry images, when someone could go back to the more original versions of the films, get a cleares image and make the whole 188 pages worthless. The real question is why hasn't anyone been able to make any real advance in getting clearer images in the last 5 years, surely it is both sides interest to do so.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 05, 2018, 01:50:55 AM
Other things I noticed when looking for that timeframe.
HB needed a bodyguard.
(https://i.imgur.com/V0T4QHe.jpg)

Here's the two of them heading for Sawyer's vehicle(with Don Cook talking to reporter).
(https://i.imgur.com/pNInaGE.jpg)

Crowd is disspersed(including Phil Willis) and witnesses ferried to DPD sometime before the Brennan/Sawyer/Euins conference is over.
(https://i.imgur.com/lcP4Cew.jpg)

For the record.
(https://i.imgur.com/XxBdPVP.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 05, 2018, 02:24:55 AM
Can't help feel that this thread reminds of Douglas Adams, description of the philosophers objection to Deep Thought. To paraphase from memory, "What is point of us spending all night argueing over whether God does or does not exist, only for this computer to give us his address in the morning"

What is the point of 188 pages argueing over blurry images, when someone could go back to the more original versions of the films, get a cleares image and make the whole 188 pages worthless. The real question is why hasn't anyone been able to make any real advance in getting clearer images in the last 5 years, surely it is both sides interest to do so.

What is the point of playing/watching sports when we could just flip a coin to decide who wins?  "How do you get to Carnegie hall?"
There's more than just blurry images in here but seeing things in that record has always been a major part of this case, I doubt it will ever go away and it is after all, something anyone can do.  Also if a decent image proves it's Oswald then it would hardly be worthless but inspirational.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Anthony Clayden on September 05, 2018, 03:10:40 AM
So why has no one managed to get a better copy of the image, it seems the obvious first thing that should be done.
Why not redirect everyone's efforts into getting a better image, set up a "gofundme", pick both a well known CT and LN to oversea the image acquisition and raise some serious money to make it reality.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 05, 2018, 04:03:25 AM
Google "the search for Wiegman and Darnell films" Anthony.
Funding idea is good but first you have to find something worth buying.

Gary Mack told me via Email that not only do they have it, they have THE film(Darnell) but to keep quite because there's problems with the rights to it.  I wasn't even asking/concerned about PM I just was blown away by the unique footage for itself, first shared here by Robin Unger I believe.  I didn't really have a relationship with him but I assume he could tell my interest was genuine.  I have no reason to believe he would take me into his confidence either, so he may have been spinning me a line but he was pretty straight with me previously.

Ask yourself and I know for most everyone it's a longshot but if it does look even more like Oswald in "quality footage" would you expect the SFM to part with it?
Personally no, if that was the case I don't think we'll ever see it from them but I don't think they'd kill both Murphy and Mack to keep it safe either.
So secrets and coincidence perhaps but you know, it's interesting.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 05, 2018, 04:14:26 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/EklMRzg.jpg)

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

Reminder for sidekick Larry.
Listen to the interview again yet?
The "Davidson enhancement" is what you should be hearing(or denying), that's what the above image represents according to Brian.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 05, 2018, 09:31:24 PM
You tell us that Wanda said that the monkeyface is "too pretty to be Sarah" but you then get Rosa to look it at, she then does so.  Without even being asked she immeadiately and without hesitation says "no, that's not",  Wanda then asks her the question "does it even look like her?" the response again is "no".   Both you and SL seem to be denying this.

It then continues, you say "but it's definetly a woman" and Wanda agrees, Rosa says "my daughter[meaning Sarah] looks something like a ..[unintelligible](did you catch it?).
You then, right in their faces, tell them with relief in your voice "thank you"  and that's all you need from her because that means it's not LHO, like it's some seal from the pope, then you switched topics to height and then the call ends.

No change of mind detected, so give us a timestamp where she says "maybe".

Sidekicks, pay attention (KEYWORDS: "Davidson enhancement" ie, Monkeyface).
https://youtu.be/QNI8z2SlV8Q?t=21m (https://youtu.be/QNI8z2SlV8Q?t=21m)

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

Does Wanda have experience in the photographical interpretation field or was this her maiden voyage?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on September 05, 2018, 09:44:47 PM
So why has no one managed to get a better copy of the image, it seems the obvious first thing that should be done.
Why not redirect everyone's efforts into getting a better image, set up a "gofundme", pick both a well known CT and LN to oversea the image acquisition and raise some serious money to make it reality.

I do not see any relative connection for any reason to "pick both a well known CT and LN to oversea(sp) the image acquisition and raise some serious money to make it reality".

Maybe those that wish to pursue the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory would care to be involved, but those that study the evidence indicating that PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository, Ms SarahJuanitaDeanStanton, most likely see no need to do so.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 05, 2018, 10:52:35 PM
"My daughter looks something like this" okay that's on it's own seems possible but since you didn't ask, how do you know what image was she looking at right then?
Certainly not the monkey because she already said "no, that's not her" then "no" again and then "she[in the "enhancement"] looks too young".
If she could change her mind that quickly you may as well dismiss everything she said.

What other images apart from the CD enhancement did she have in front her?
I'll bet she was looking at a fuller Wiegman and pointing at Reece.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 05, 2018, 11:05:21 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/dqqHcNM.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/RSvZzX0.jpg)

You going to tell me you never noticed?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Anthony Clayden on September 05, 2018, 11:23:57 PM

Gary Mack told me via Email that not only do they have it, they have THE film(Darnell) but to keep quite because there's problems with the rights to it. 

Film was shot in 1963, wouldn't only be covered for copyright laws at the time it was created. In the US, that was 28 years plus an additional 28 years that could be applied for. So even with the extension it would be out of copyright in 2019. Or is he concerned that the family will move for ownership of the original and sell it off?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 05, 2018, 11:41:39 PM
Film was shot in 1963, wouldn't only be covered for copyright laws at the time it was created. In the US, that was 28 years plus an additional 28 years that could be applied for. So even with the extension it would be out of copyright in 2019. Or is he concerned that the family will move for ownership of the original and sell it off?

I didn't question or pursue it Anthony, IIRC I got the impression that, they had it but couldn't use/sell/rent/hire/display it until the rights were properly established.
If it were down to Gary alone I get the feeling that he would want Darnell to benefit at least a little(Jimmy was still alive then too 2014/15 IIRC).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 06, 2018, 12:39:52 AM
Brian, off the record/tape you pointed Wanda to these "arms" and told her they looked fat, she agreed and now that's what she sees.
(https://i.imgur.com/muIEv34.jpg)
So now she sees "fat arms" and that means to her that this person must be obese and so now "it looks just like her"... that's some logic,
but she has no idea what she's looking at and how distorted it is from reality, that strange episode comes before your focus on the "too pretty" face.

You claim to have the same problem, you cannot seperate thea above image from reality but there should be a simple way to snap you out of it.
Search the entire internet and find an arm that looks anything like that mess.

Again, Wanda saw a "fat arm" and she makes an assumption that the entire person must be fat, that's it, from small acorns grow...
There's nothing else.  From one fat arm she thus concludes "it could be her"
but the face is not, since it's "too pretty" and the rest from Rosa.
Is that full and honest enough for you?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 06, 2018, 01:23:11 AM
...Maybe those that wish to pursue the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory would care to be involved, but those that study the evidence indicating that PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository, Ms SarahJuanitaDeanStanton, most likely see no need to do so.


Quite possibly the craziest thing you have wrote to date, your prejudice is really showing now you've relaxed a little, at your entrance you claimed you had none. 
You never fail to dissapoint and lest you forget, you speak for no one other than yourself as you keep reminding us.
"Most likely" is another way of saying you have no idea.
There is no evidence that indicates PM is a female.  ABSOLUTE ZERO and you've not once explained why you think PM LOOKS LIKE a female..
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on September 06, 2018, 05:11:49 PM
I do not see any relative connection for any reason to "pick both a well known CT and LN to oversea(sp) the image acquisition and raise some serious money to make it reality".

Maybe those that wish to pursue the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory would care to be involved, but those that study the evidence indicating that PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository, Ms SarahJuanitaDeanStanton, most likely see no need to do so.

Quite possibly the craziest thing you have wrote to date, your prejudice is really showing now you've relaxed a little, at your entrance you claimed you had none. 
You never fail to dissapoint and lest you forget, you speak for no one other than yourself as you keep reminding us.
"Most likely" is another way of saying you have no idea.
There is no evidence that indicates PM is a female.  ABSOLUTE ZERO and you've not once explained why you think PM LOOKS LIKE a female..
::)As I do not recall making statements as stated here by MrBarryPollard, maybe he can provide the complete direct quote for each statement, along with reference for the complete conversation relative to said quote(s).
In any event, "Most likely" means most likely, just as "evidently" means evidently, just as "indicative" means indicative, just as "conclusion" means conclusion, just as "maybe" means maybe, just as "possibly" means possibly.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on September 07, 2018, 08:43:33 PM
As I have concluded, it is reasonably important to provide evidence of a valid identification of the LadyImages standing with/beside LadyImage, aka GloriaCalveryImage, on the Elm St sidewalk between the two FreewaySigns as seen in ZapruderFilm viewing the passing PresidentialMotorcade.
 Notebly, valid relative LadyImage identification evidence solidly enhances the reliable evidence indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing SarahStanton.
 Admittedly, when viewing CouchFilm and/or DarnellFim, I had originally thought that GloriaCalveryImage had encountered BillyLovelady Image when reaching the stairs. However, since indications are that BLI has just left the stairs/landing and is walking west on Old Elm St, I now believe GCI is closely behind another LadyImage, possibly aka KarenWestbrookImage, who appears to be wearing a light color headscarf. And, along side of GCI on her right, is a LadyImage, likely aka KaranHicksImage, who is apparently dressed in white with a white or light color headscarf.
 Additionally, it is my conclusion that RunningWomanImage, as seen in CFilm/DFilm, is most likely aka CarolReedImage, who appears in ZFilm to be wearing a light color blouse, and is either wearing a reddish headscarf, or possibly has red hair.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 08, 2018, 12:17:21 AM
"Most likely" means he has no proof and is guessing, as do words like possibly, indicative and maybe, apperently he's the only one that doesn't realise this and that's why he can make conclusions based on guesswork.

When he joined in here I said that one of his fiirst statements sounded biased because as he wrote, he had "never not doubted" PM=LHO, that means, in basic English and as I pointed out, that he had never even considered it.  He then denied he was biased but yet repeatedly and again as I just responded to, pigeonholes people based on what side of the PM issue they are on.  Specifically now he wrote, some of us wouldn't contribute to a fund for better images because they'd have nothing to gain, so I repeat, this mindset is just whacky and akin to "all CT's have this basic need for there to be a conspiracy in this case".

Now you answer my question Larry.
What witness, or group of witnesses, ever PROVED anything by what they said alone?  Pick any case you like.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 08, 2018, 12:22:55 AM
...
The PrayerPersonImage is no doubt to me, along with others, representing a female then employed at the TSBD Bldg who was, as most of the bldg employees, outside during lunchtime to view the passing motorcade.
...

He's never explained how or why "PMimage" looks like a female to him.  Never.  So is there a problem he won't admit to?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 08, 2018, 02:04:02 AM
... Notebly, valid relative LadyImage identification evidence solidly enhances the reliable evidence indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing SarahStanton...


Utter BS.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 09, 2018, 05:07:39 AM
About time we were reminded just what she looked like before she was scalped.
(https://i.imgur.com/DhdqJIV.jpg)
This is from Robin Unger's gif which was posted, I assume, using the best frames available which have yet to be bettered and prior to Davidson accidently creating more "detail" to a "face" he has yet to comment on.  When Chris went and deliberetly tried to bring out facial features from PM this scalping victim was nowhere to be seen.

Brian claims this is another person stood behind our girl who apparently sliced the top of her head off just from being there.
Was an uncut version shown to Wanda and Rosa?

Also Brian I asked you how you knew what Rosa was looking at when she muttered "She looked more like this".
What were the complete set of images they had in front of them?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 09, 2018, 05:27:51 AM
Larry has never explained how "PMimage", LOOKS LIKE a woman and still hasn't.  He rejects the Weigman "enhancements" so is left with Darnell.. and he sees a woman but how, still remains a mystery.  Am I really asking that much?  Also, my other question still remains unanswered,
show us when and where a witness ever proved anything of significance just by what they claimed to have witnessed, ever, in the complete history of mankind.
"I think, therefore I am"?

Likes to quote the witness record where they weren't even cross examined but will not even touch, let alone delve into, how utterly unreliable that source of information has become to most modern scholars.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 09, 2018, 07:14:22 AM
There is no reaction visible in Darnell from either PM, BWF or the person to his left, whereas everyone else on the steps has either moved position and/or is looking west.
There is no facial features visible either, that PM and BWF are looking in the general direction of each other is not disputed but what exactly they are looking at is pure guesswork, I get no sense they are looking directly at each other at all.
"There been a shooting, JFK 's been hit", that's not entered their conciousness yet, IMO based on the same images you use Brian, the one's that show no viasble reaction from those on the landing.

No chubbies allowed.
(https://i.imgur.com/DizPANX.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on September 10, 2018, 05:04:11 AM
Larry has never explained how "PMimage", LOOKS LIKE a woman and still hasn't.  He rejects the Weigman "enhancements" so is left with Darnell.. and he sees a woman but how, still remains a mystery.  Am I really asking that much?  Also, my other question still remains unanswered,
show us when and where a witness ever proved anything of significance just by what they claimed to have witnessed, ever, in the complete history of mankind.
"I think, therefore I am"?

Likes to quote the witness record where they weren't even cross examined but will not even touch, let alone delve into, how utterly unreliable that source of information has become to most modern scholars.

 ::)
Assuming the comments referring to PM are in reference to PrayerPersonImage, it is my well studied developed conclusion that PPI represents SarahDeanStanton, an adult female then employed at the TexasSchoolBook DepositoryBuilding, who as most other TSBD Bldg employees was outside of the bldg to view the Presidential Motorcade as it went past the TSBD Bldg.
Testimony and statements, aided by filmed/photographed images, provide evidence about the identity of the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance stairs/landing occupants observing the motorcade as filmed/pictured at 12:30pm/12:31pm CST. And, said evidence indicates PrayerPersonImage to represent Ms Stanton.
Prior to said conclusion(s), I held no opinion of the gender of PrayerPersonImage, and only after someone decided to declare the image to be male, and/or LeeHarveyOswald, I began said study that eventually led to my conclusion. Also, said conclusion places no reliance on any PPI film/photo enhancement(s).
However, I make no claim of discovery, but a developed conclusion due to assisted understanding aided by the research of others as well as my own.


If MrBarryPollard desires any additional clarification, maybe he should seek out "most modern scholars"!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 11, 2018, 08:11:03 PM
Larry has never explained how "PMimage", LOOKS LIKE a woman and still hasn't.  He rejects the Weigman "enhancements" so is left with Darnell.. and he sees a woman but how, still remains a mystery.  Am I really asking that much?  Also, my other question still remains unanswered,
show us when and where a witness ever proved anything of significance just by what they claimed to have witnessed, ever, in the complete history of mankind.
"I think, therefore I am"?

Likes to quote the witness record where they weren't even cross examined but will not even touch, let alone delve into, how utterly unreliable that source of information has become to most modern scholars.

Asking exactly how the images have "aided him" is all I'm doing but he has still yet to specify, that's completely dishonest behaviour as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 11, 2018, 09:16:32 PM
If MrBarryPollard desires any additional clarification, maybe he should seek out "most modern scholars"!

That's a reference to real researchers into witness memory and recollection, something that you have not only denied knowledge of but refused to discuss it when directed to it because it was "off topic".
ONE WITNESS WHO EVER PROVED ANYTHING IN THIS CASE OR ANY OTHER.  Hit me.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 11, 2018, 09:34:52 PM
About time we were reminded just what she looked like before she was scalped...
(https://i.imgur.com/DhdqJIV.jpg)..

Pholes in the snow for eyes and
on it's own, no hair on top of head would suggest a bald man with bushy hair on the sides trying to divert attention away from his crome, NOHAIRMAN!
The camera shy person who slipped behind him would look something like this horrible man.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Fred_Gwynne_as_Herman_Munster_in_1964.jpg)

You want to discuss this in detail?
Can we see the uncut CD version first?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 11, 2018, 10:15:42 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/0zSf6Ub.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yFV9Wgf.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/RZIVniV.jpg)
Cankles and no visible hips.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 11, 2018, 10:53:10 PM
That's a reference to real researchers into witness memory and recollection, something that you have not only denied knowledge of but refused to discuss it when directed to it because it was "off topic".
ONE WITNESS WHO EVER PROVED ANYTHING IN THIS CASE OR ANY OTHER.  Hit me.
theinvisiblegorilla.com
http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/videos.html (http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/videos.html)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 11, 2018, 11:24:58 PM
Bald on top and bushy hair on the sides should be easy to find IF he exists.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 12, 2018, 01:07:12 AM
Brehm, ignoring his young boy who was more or less in the line of fire and applauding the shooting.
Imagine trying to explain this to him after what he said.
Mere feet from the limo and notices nothing wrong until the head explodes, welcome to the real world.
Buell Frazier told us nothing and certainly nothing we could hang our coats on.
Viewing this event and putting emphasis on the eyewitnesses testimony to claim you know exactly what happened and when is about as convincing as you saying you "see hips" therefore there must be hips visable.
If I wanted Youtube level debate I'd go argue on there.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on September 12, 2018, 06:23:23 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/0zSf6Ub.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yFV9Wgf.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/RZIVniV.jpg)
Cankles and no visible hips.
Uhh, I do believe that the LadyImage pictured in the bottom photograph represents SarahJuanitaDean DanielStanton, and IMO, the photograph was taken in the early 1970s.

However, if the XLadyImage seen in the top photograph, represents SarahStanton, where is the evidence? And as well, in the middle photograph, where is the evidence indicative of the so labeled SarahStantonImage actually representing SarahStanton?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on September 14, 2018, 07:52:38 PM
Asking exactly how the images have "aided him" is all I'm doing but he has still yet to specify, that's completely dishonest behaviour as far as I'm concerned.

There is sufficient reliable provable evidence that places SarahDeanStanton on the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building Elm St entrance landing as the PresidentialMotorcade drove past at about 12:30pm CST 11/22/'63. She has to be there somewhere, so anyone wishing to deny the evidence indicating that PrayerPersonImage represents SarahDeanStanton needs to indicate where she is, and provide evidence indicative of her location, other than in the place of PrayerPersonImage.

It is quite disappointing that the well researched and well studied evidence indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing SarahDeanStanton is continually denied, but said denial fails to produce valid reliable provable evidence placing SarahDean Stanton anywhere else at said time, nor is there any valid reliable provable evidence produced indicative of anyone else being represented by PrayerPersonImage.


And what specifically is the mentioned "completely dishonest behaviour"? I will decide my behavior, and let others determine their own behaviour!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on September 16, 2018, 06:16:03 PM
I suppose that my problem is that the small FemalePersonImage, as seen on some versions of DarnellFilm, is just that, (as seen on some versions).
Based on what I have seen and experienced in this situation, I am unable to place any reliability on the use and placement of mannequins.
As I recall, I too held reservations regarding any purposeful exposure of any contacted relatives of SarahStanton to any forum discussion(s) about the assassination of USP JohnKennedySr.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 09, 2018, 10:49:26 PM

I'm not at all sure Frazier is as far forward on the landing as Andrej puts him!

(https://i.imgur.com/osFCnun.jpg)
To be viewed if needed, but insertions are insertions, IMO. And, it appears as though a BillyLoveladyImageMannequin is still on the stairs and facing GloriaCalveryImageMannequin, when there is evidence indicating another LadyImage to be in that space, in front of GCI.
In any event, I do not recognize any evidentiary value on the VirtualEntrancePortal with PersonImageMannequin insertions.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 18, 2018, 06:51:33 PM
 BS:

Nobody has proven who prayer person is.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 19, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
BS:
Nobody has proven who prayer person is.

Granted John, "proven" is a strong word for a powerful state of being. And, I prefer to use evidence, but with value added terms, like indicative, reliable, provable, accessible, as a judgement for reasoning of a stated conclusion.
That said, I have concluded, for some time now, that accessible, reliable, and provable evidence is indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing SarahJuanitaDean/Daniel/Stanton. Her own statement/testimony places her on the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building Elm St EntranceLanding at the time, as does testimony/statements of other LandingOccupants who, like her, were then employed at the TSBD Bldg. So, she has to be there somewhere, and it is a small area. Plainly stated, in order to remove SarahDeanStanton from the PrayerPersonImage space, she would have to be relocated to another space on the Landing.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 23, 2018, 11:52:53 PM
I have to agree.  In the interview Brian outright told the ladies that he had already identified the figure as Sarah.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on October 24, 2018, 10:53:45 PM
Why, yes, Albert........ why don't you "do" an e-book?  You can show all the diagrams/graphics on the "pages" that you don't seem to be technically able to do on internet forums.  Perhaps Davidson can help you out, along with Mssrs. Trotter and Gilbride.........  why, I can even see a screenplay here.  I wonder who could play you, Albert?  Perhaps AJ Weberman?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Robin Unger on October 25, 2018, 11:21:18 AM
Frazier confirmed Prayer Man was Stanton... ?

That is news to me. ?

Please cite a reference where Frazier made this statement.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 25, 2018, 11:23:35 AM
Frazier confirmed Prayer Man was Stanton... ?

That is news to me. ?

Please cite a reference where Frazier made this statement.

Robin, he only assumed it.......
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Logan on October 29, 2018, 06:53:54 PM
In the attached video Frazier makes a reference to a Lady named Sarah who happened to be standing next to him. This happens at the 18:24 mark. Funny thing though , using his thumb he points to the LEFT referring to the "Sarah" position.


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on October 29, 2018, 11:45:50 PM
It was a dude taking pictures with a camera
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on October 30, 2018, 09:38:56 AM
I still think Prayer Person is Pauline Sanders........It's Sarah To The Left


Duncan, last year I have sent you one picture found on Facebook but I cant remember who she was, Pauline Sanders or somebody else.
My messages were lost.
Do you maybe recall whose picture did I send to you? Remember it was a lady from her grandson or niece Facebook page and she had the same right hand as Prayer Person. I think it was Pauline but absolutely not sure and I cant find it again.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on October 30, 2018, 10:15:31 AM
Duncan, last year I have sent you one picture found on Facebook but I cant remember who she was, Pauline Sanders or somebody else.
My messages were lost.
Do you maybe recall whose picture did I send to you? Remember it was a lady from her grandson or niece Facebook page and she had the same right hand as Prayer Person. I think it was Pauline but absolutely not sure and I cant find it again.

Thank you.
I'm sorry, Patrick, I can't remember.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 30, 2018, 11:47:23 AM
After about the 34:00 minute mark, BuellWesleyFrazier seems to gesture with his right hand while discussing the lady that was standing near him, aka SarahStanton.



At that point, Frazier moves both his hands in different directions. Just shows , you see what you want to see.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 31, 2018, 01:43:09 AM
So what?
In the recorded images where Calvery is seen, Frazier is looking to his right.
In a logical analysis, the turn to which Frazier refers can only be a turn to the left.
Frazier must have turned to his left to listen to Sarah Stanton.
This irrefutably means that Sarah Stanton is not Prayer Man.


(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5QrXIy73dvY/VgB0MvcPtdI/AAAAAAABHeQ/DYLHIbWWej8/s1600/Dealey-Plaza-TSBD-11-22-63.png)

If someone wishes to proclaim that PrayerPersonImage does not represent SarahDeanStanton, then maybe SarahDeanStantonImage can be identified on film. There are numerous statements and testimonies placing her on the landing. Her family has indicated it to be her, and provided a PhotographImage of her as well. What was the then size of the landing? Maybe 11' x 3.5' ? So, if another person of her indicated size is on the landing when filmed, she should be able to be located.
The PrayerPersonImage proper identification has been thoroughly researched, and debated. Evidence has been produced that strongly indicates SarahStanton to be the person represented by the Image, and disagreeing is not evidence. If I can be shown to have reached the wrong conclusion about PrayerPersonImage identity, so be it. But I have not seen any provable evidence indicating PrayerPersonImage represents anyone other than SarahDeanStanton!
The posters that wish to personally insult others, don't seem interested in providing reliable evidence.
In any event, if evidence, real evidence can be provided, bring it on.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 31, 2018, 01:59:08 AM
At that point, Frazier moves both his hands in different directions. Just shows , you see what you want to see.

No Mr Mitcham, I see what I see, and that is what I described. I try to avoid simply running my mouth!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 31, 2018, 03:03:43 AM

There's no speculation in my analysis of Frazier's comments when studied along with the existing imagery.

This is all Fact!!!!

In the recorded images where Calvery is seen, Frazier is looking to his right.
In a logical analysis, the turn to which Frazier refers can only be a turn to the left.
Frazier must have turned to his left to listen to Sarah Stanton.
This irrefutably means that Sarah Stanton is not Prayer Man.
I have to disagree Duncan. I see no indication of BuellWesleyFrazier turning to his left, and considering that he was watching and listening to GloriaCalvery's announcement as to what she had just seen as she arrived at the bottom of the stairs, for Mr Frazier to look towards someone beside him, even maybe slightly back, on his right, he would still likely turn somewhat in that direction, and in my opinion/conclusion, that person is SarahDeanStanton.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 31, 2018, 09:30:41 AM
No Mr Mitcham, I see what I see, and that is what I described. I try to avoid simply running my mouth!
"I try to avoid simply running my mouth!" And fail miserably, as usual.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 31, 2018, 04:27:01 PM
You don't know, and neither does anyone else, that Gloria Calvery was making an announcement at the bottom of the stairs area.

As she can't be seen at the top of the steps in any images, and Buell is still facing to his right, it can logically be concluded, not assumed, that if Buell made another left turn towards Sarah Stanton, it must have been after Gloria Calvery had gone further up the steps and made her "announcement"

It's the only common sense scenario that fits a second left turn. 


And you do not know, and neither does anyone else, that GloriaCalvery did not make her alluded to announcement at the bottom of the stairs. There is evidentiary testimony that she announced what she had just witnessed after arriving at the stairs, which quite likely occurred less than 30 seconds after the shooting. And, their is visual evidence that BuellWesleyFrazierImage is looking at least slightly to his right as filmed, but I have seen no visual indication, nor seen/heard any testimony, that he actually turned to his left, and there is no visual evidence of SarahStantonImage being to his left in the seconds following the shooting. But, maybe he could be asked, and maybe he knew then, and maybe he remembers now.
In any event, I maintain my conclusion, based on evidentiary valuable indicative information. But for me, a waving motion of a hand without any specific directional information is not evidentiary valuable indicative information. And besides, if it did, is it known whether it is meant to be 'his left', or 'viewers left'?

I apologize for the incidental oversize lettering, as apparently another format change has occurred.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Robin Unger on October 31, 2018, 04:39:40 PM
From the Prayerman site.
Credit: Linda Giovanna Zambanini

Is this Pauline sanders ?

(https://i.imgur.com/wNVWT15.png)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 31, 2018, 04:43:07 PM
"I try to avoid simply running my mouth!" And fail miserably, as usual.

The  BS: comments of a RunningMouthExpert? Oh well Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on October 31, 2018, 04:49:17 PM
The  BS: comments of a RunningMouthExpert? Oh well Thumb1:

Pot and kettle. Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on October 31, 2018, 07:01:07 PM
For clarification, I make no claim other than that of a Student of Research of the JohnKennedySr Assassination. And, to make conclusions based upon said study.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Logan on October 31, 2018, 07:57:50 PM
"I pity the fool"
      -Bosco B.A. Baracus-
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 31, 2018, 08:46:26 PM
Nothing in there about "A-team poster" or "cutting edge top researcher".

Go figure...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on October 31, 2018, 09:25:03 PM
What has been known to some us for months, nay years!, viz. that Sarah Stanton is not Prayer Person, now seems generally accepted. The penny sure was slow a-droppin', but dropped it finally has. Thumb1:

Now! I would be grateful if someone could kindly tell us what, in their view, supports the theory that Prayer Person is Pauline Sanders. (Apart, that is, from the appealing fact that Pauline Sanders is not Lee Harvey Oswald.)

Thanking you in advance!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Robin Unger on October 31, 2018, 10:09:06 PM
Need to identify Stanton,Sanders,Davis,McCully

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/2m80b2p.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Robin Unger on October 31, 2018, 10:17:45 PM
Reese and Dean identified.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Image32.JPG)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 02, 2018, 07:20:36 PM
What has been known to some us for months, nay years!, viz. that Sarah Stanton is not Prayer Person, now seems generally accepted. The penny sure was slow a-droppin', but dropped it finally has. Thumb1:

Now! I would be grateful if someone could kindly tell us what, in their view, supports the theory that Prayer Person is Pauline Sanders. (Apart, that is, from the appealing fact that Pauline Sanders is not Lee Harvey Oswald.)

Thanking you in advance!
I don't know who "some us" is, but it continues to be my conclusion, accepted by me, that PrayerPerson Image represents SarahDeanStanton, as filmed on the TSBD Bldg Elm St Entrance Landing at 12:30pm CST, on 11/22/'63. And, provable evidence has been provided in support of said conclusion, so should anyone wish to dispute said conclusion, maybe they can provide provable evidence supporting their dispute conclusion.

In any event, and as previously concluded by myself, initially the provable evidence reduced the most likely candidates being represented by PrayerPersonImage to two, PaulineRebmanSanders(1908-1996), and SarahDeanStanton(1922-1992). And, additional provable evidence was developed indicating SarahDean Stanton as the correct identity of PrayerPersonImage.

The fact remains, that PaulineRebmanSanders and SarahDeanStanton are being discussed for Image Identification only, as both ladies were then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building, and like most of the others then employed there, simply went outside during lunchtime to view the Presidential Motorcade as it went past the TSBD Bldg.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 05, 2018, 09:57:05 AM
I feel quite proud to be insulted by the Forums two prize idiots.

One believes an assassin would try to shoot through two windows (one closed) and the other sees imaginary  buttons. ROTFLMAO.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 05, 2018, 07:55:50 PM
I have decided not to answer your inane comments any longer. It is not only boring me but it seems they are boring everybody else on the forum.


As I have said before, please seek medical help before it is too late, Brian.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on November 05, 2018, 08:46:43 PM
I have decided not to answer your inane comments any longer. It is not only boring me but it seems they are boring everybody else on the forum.


As I have said before, please seek medical help before it is too late, Brian.

And accept the proven fact that Lee Harvey Oswald (one little Marxist creep, no double(s)) made two out of three shots from his MC on the 6th floor of the Texas State Book Depository and killed the President of the United States of America.  Yes, that's what happened.  A sad day on the planet. May G-d have mercy on John F. Kennedy's soul+
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 07, 2018, 06:50:22 PM
Again, get a grip.  You are the only one who thinks that there has been any kind of "break-through".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 07, 2018, 06:59:15 PM
As a reminder, although suppositions and theories may change, true facts do not...
I maintain my conclusion, based on provable evidentiary valuable indicative information, that PrayerPersonImage represents SarahDeanStanton(1922-1992), then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building, who had joined others then employed there that had gone outside during lunchtime to view the passing US PresidentialMotorcade. 

Also, based on evidentiary valuable indicative information, it is my conclusion that PaulineRebmanSanders(1908-1996), then employed at the TSBD Bldg, had as well joined others on the stairs/landing to view the Motorcade as it turned onto Elm St and passed the TSBD Bldg. However, I am unable to conclude the exact location for PaulineRebmanSandersImage


As a reminder, these ladies are being discussed strictly for Image identification and placement purposes only, in order to ascertain other Image placements and event timing(s). There is absolutely nothing indicative of their participation in the JFKSr Assassination and/or accompanying relative events.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 11, 2018, 07:58:27 PM
It is my somewhat well studied developed conclusion that BuellWesleyFrazier's statements and/or comments are indicative of SarahDeanStanton, above all other landing/stairs occupants, as being the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, as filmed/pictured at 12:30pm CST, 11/22/'63.

Any request for evidentiary information for a declaration that literally, BuellWesleyFrazier literally declared PrayerPersonImage to represent SarahDeanStanton, does have merit in my opinion.

However, in my opinion, any literal declaration that BuellWesleyFrazier never literally declared PrayerPersonImage to represent SarahDeanStanton, is hopefully afforded the same evidentiary information stipulation.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan J. Ford on November 14, 2018, 05:34:19 PM
To avoid any further confusion with Sarah Stanton as the indvidual behind Lovelady, let's highlight  a definitive portion of Billy Nolan Lovelady's testimony, where he makes it crystal clear that Mrs. Stanton stood With him, not Behind him ---->

Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me


Of course Warren Commission counsel quickly redirects Lovelady before he could elaborate further about the individual behind him ---->

Mr. BALL - What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.
Mr. BALL - What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley.
Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton.
Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.


We can all agree there's a major difference between standing with our family and/or friends at a sporting event, or at a favourite outdoor concert as oppose to saying I attended a sporting event and/or favourite music concert, but my family and friends stood behind me.

Now with that point made (really the reason I signed in), please let me wish all a safe & happy holiday season ahead right into the new year--Alan Ford LINK DELETED: Links To websites which contain materials or links to materials which are unsuitable for viewing by minors is forbidden
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on November 14, 2018, 09:26:59 PM
It was a dude taking pictures with a camera, possibly came off the street for a better shadowesque view in lieu of the sun-plane.  Where have I heard that before?

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 14, 2018, 09:58:26 PM
It was a dude taking pictures with a camera, possibly came off the street for a better shadowesque view in lieu of the sun-plane.  Where have I heard that before?

If you accept that it's a dude (and you're right!), then it's but a tiny step to accepting that it might be a dude named Lee Harvey Oswald. He would have been much less conspicuous amidst all those Depository employees than a randomer off the street!


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 14, 2018, 10:34:23 PM
It's a blob of undifferentiated pixels.  Anybody who tells you different is engaging in wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 14, 2018, 10:54:21 PM
It's a blob of undifferentiated pixels.  Anybody who tells you different is engaging in wishful thinking.

Okay, so it's a blob of undifferentiated pixels.
Therefore you would be unwilling, based on the undifferentiated-pixel character of the blobby image, to rule out the possibility that it might be a bald black man?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 14, 2018, 11:16:16 PM
Okay, so it's a blob of undifferentiated pixels.
Therefore you would be unwilling, based on the undifferentiated-pixel character of the blobby image, to rule out the possibility that it might be a bald black man?

Yes
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 15, 2018, 08:05:27 AM
Yes

If you are unwilling even to rule out the possibility that Prayer Person is a bald black man, then I am unwilling to rule out the possibility that your entire take on this topic is a blob of undifferentiated piffle!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 15, 2018, 06:41:41 PM
If you are unwilling even to rule out the possibility that Prayer Person is a bald black man, then I am unwilling to rule out the possibility that your entire take on this topic is a blob of undifferentiated piffle!

Sorry I didn't give you the answer you were hoping for.  Prayer-blob is still prayer-blob.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 15, 2018, 11:33:19 PM
Prayerblob could be anybody.

Such as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 15, 2018, 11:42:59 PM
Such as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Yes, it certainly could be LHO.  And it could be Stanton.  But nobody has actually made a very compelling argument for either.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 16, 2018, 12:07:21 AM
People see what they want to see.

You have certainly proved that principle here, and handsomely!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on November 16, 2018, 09:23:33 AM
Last year I have managed to trace Pauline Sanders on her nephew Facebook page. Now I cannot find it again. I remember that I have traced her via her obituary page and I am sure that she died in 2000s in her 90s. It was the picture with the same right hand position as Prayer Woman.

Therefore, I do not think that the person bellow is Pauline we are looking for. I think Linda Giovanna Zambanini done few wrong tags on Findagrave site and others. I will do my best to find the Facebook photo again.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zBpYVzsc/140987229-dd92c342-faa5-4e2d-b246-9fce399f3ece.png)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 16, 2018, 07:53:19 PM
Thanks for adding virtual exclamation points to my comments. And that Sir, completes this discussion between you and I.

Hey, I'm just glad you put a space between my first name and my last name!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 16, 2018, 08:22:07 PM
There is a huge difference between acknowledging a possibility of something and claiming to have proven that thing is true.  Sure, PP could be wearing a wig or a scarf or a hoodie or there's a shadow there that looks like a darker patch.  It's a Rorschach test involving blurry blobs.  Some people think they see buttons, some people think they see a camera, some people think they see a coffee cup, some people think they see obese woman hips, and some people see they see Lee Harvey Oswald.

LOL. That you would actually compare seeing hair on Prayer Person's head with seeing buttons on 'her' overgarment-----

(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)

-----tells us all we need to know about your own inability to offer a differentiated analysis of the issue!

You're not being rigorously skeptical, Mr Iacoletti, you're just being tediously obtuse. If Darnell offered us enough detail to correctly identify Buell Wesley Frazier (and others), then it is plain silly to loftily dismiss the Prayer Person image as a 'blob of undifferentiated pixels'. Such LNerish dogmatism leads one to absurd statements such as that Prayer Person may possibly be a bald black man.  ::)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 16, 2018, 08:48:52 PM
-----tells us all we need to know about your own inability to offer a differentiated analysis of the issue!

Yes, everybody think that their own opinion is the "obvious" one.

Quote
You're not being rigorously skeptical, Mr Iacoletti, you're just being tediously obtuse. If Darnell offered us enough detail to correctly identify Buell Wesley Frazier (and others),

That's just this thing.  Darnell doesn't give us enough detail to correctly identify Buell Wesley Frazier (and others).  If all you had to go on is Darnell, how would you surmise that was Frazier?

Quote
then it is plain silly to loftily dismiss the Prayer Person image as a 'blob of undifferentiated pixels'. Such LNerish dogmatism leads one to absurd statements such as that Prayer Person may possibly be a bald black man.  ::)

Well, let me know if you come up with anything beyond "I think it looks like him".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2018, 05:03:30 AM
That's just this thing.  Darnell doesn't give us enough detail to correctly identify Buell Wesley Frazier (and others).  If all you had to go on is Darnell, how would you surmise that was Frazier?

Because it looks like him: the hair, the height.
Then again, perhaps it's not Frazier. Perhaps it's a bald black man. I take it that you, applying the same observation to 'Frazier' as to 'Prayer Person' (i.e. a blob of undifferentiated pixels), would refuse to rule that possibility out? Sauce for the goose, right?

(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 17, 2018, 11:32:59 PM
From Dom Bonafede, 'The Picture With A Life Of Its Own', NY Herald Tribune, 23 May 1964:

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

Note that, according to Mr Lovelady, their worry was not that some clueless members of the public would look at Altgens and be mistakenly convinced it was Mr Oswald, but that Altgens would turn out to be showing Mr Oswald actually on those steps.

Question for inquiring minds!
Why would any FBI agents have even considered Mr Oswald's being on the front steps as a possibility when Mr Oswald himself was telling his interrogators that he was somewhere else on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed the building? Why would Altgens have even been a worry for them? I mean, if the suspect himself is claiming no such thing, where's the problem?

???
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 18, 2018, 12:42:04 AM
From Dom Bonafede, 'The Picture With A Life Of Its Own', NY Herald Tribune, 23 May 1964:

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

Note that, according to Mr Lovelady, their worry was not that some clueless members of the public would look at Altgens and be mistakenly convinced it was Mr Oswald, but that Altgens would turn out to be showing Mr Oswald actually on those steps.

Question for inquiring minds!
Why would any FBI agents have even considered Mr Oswald's being on the front steps as a possibility when Mr Oswald himself was telling his interrogators that he was somewhere else on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed the building? Why would Altgens have even been a worry for them? I mean, if the suspect himself is claiming no such thing, where's the problem?

???
???It is known as Image Resemblance. ::)Try real hard to understand that the TSBD Elm St Entrance Portal was background imaging some distance behind the Limousine focus point for Altgens6 Photograph.And. I am sure they just sought confirmation from BillyLovelady that it was him. Why else would they seek him out? >:(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2018, 09:35:38 AM
From Dom Bonafede, 'The Picture With A Life Of Its Own', NY Herald Tribune, 23 May 1964:

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

Note that, according to Mr Lovelady, their worry was not that some clueless members of the public would look at Altgens and be mistakenly convinced it was Mr Oswald, but that Altgens would turn out to be showing Mr Oswald actually on those steps.

Question for inquiring minds!
Why would any FBI agents have even considered Mr Oswald's being on the front steps as a possibility when Mr Oswald himself was telling his interrogators that he was somewhere else on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed the building? Why would Altgens have even been a worry for them? I mean, if the suspect himself is claiming no such thing, where's the problem?

???

Ironically, it is the zeal of these FBI agents to explain away an image that is not of Mr Oswald (= Mr Lovelady in the doorway in Altgens) that tips us off as to their grounds for fearing that Mr Oswald really might show up in an image showing the west side of the doorway....
What Mr Oswald Was Saying In Custody!

Thus! We begin to understand just why it was that no specifics are given in the first (=joint) FBI interrogation report as to where exactly on the first floor Mr Oswald was claiming to have been when President John F. Kennedy passed the building...

(https://i.imgur.com/748HheJ.jpg)

Remember, remember: Mr Lovelady in Altgens looks like he is way over on the west side of the doorway
------precisely Mr Oswald's claimed location at the time of the assassination!
------precisely (though this will not emerge for some years) the location of Prayer Person!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2018, 11:32:58 AM
Ironically, it is the zeal of these FBI agents to explain away an image that is not of Mr Oswald (= Mr Lovelady in the doorway in Altgens) that tips us off as to their grounds for fearing that Mr Oswald really might show up in an image showing the west side of the doorway....
What Mr Oswald Was Saying In Custody!

Thus! We begin to understand just why it was that no specifics are given in the first (=joint) FBI interrogation report as to where exactly on the first floor Mr Oswald was claiming to have been when President John F. Kennedy passed the building...

(https://i.imgur.com/748HheJ.jpg)

Remember, remember: Mr Lovelady in Altgens looks like he is way over on the west side of the doorway
------precisely Mr Oswald's claimed location at the time of the assassination!
------precisely (though this will not emerge for some years) the location of Prayer Person!

Now!

The Prayer Person figure on the west of the front entrance is not just any figure. It is a figure whom certain people have spent the past 5 years desperately trying to identify as some Depository employee other than Mr Oswald. Because they at least have the smarts to understand how the simple process of elimination works. And, the more zealous their efforts, the more they reveal their awareness of the problem which Prayer Person's enigmatic presence presents.

For these people, Anyone But Oswald will do!

Except, it turns out that no one other than Oswald will do...  :-[

Bill Shelley? Nope!
Billy Lovelady? Nope!
Roy Edward Lewis? Nope!
Pauline Sanders? Nope!
Ruth Dean? Nope!
Sarah Stanton! Nope!
Buell Wesley Frazier! Nope!
Madie Reese? Nope!
Eddie Piper? Nope! (Although Mr John Iacoletti may feel differently about this one, as he believes Prayer Person may possibly be a bald black man...)
Otis Williams? Nope!
Joe Molina? Nope!
etc!
etc!

And yet , through it all, Prayer Person still stands, still resembling Mr Oswald, and still located in that part of the doorway which the FBI agents who visited Mr Oswald's lookalike Mr Lovelady were evidently so worried about (viz., the west side).

If there were any way on earth to argue that Prayer Person were Mr Lovelady (i.e. if Prayer Person weren't seen standing next to Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman frames, and if Mr Lovelady hadn't testified to having left the steps by this time), then does anyone seriously doubt that the resemblance between Prayer Person and Mr Lovelady would have been acknowledged by 'serious researchers'?

Of course not! But when the stakes are raised----i.e. when not Mr Lovelady but Mr Lovelady's lookalike Mr Oswald turns out to be the sole remaining credible candidate for Prayer Person-----well... that's a whole different ballgame. That's when the Anyone But The Obvious Candidate sophistry kicks in.

And yet, through it all, Prayer Person still stands, still resembling Mr Oswald, still breaking LNer and Lunchroom-Story-Devotee hearts everywhere.  :'(

(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Barber on November 18, 2018, 02:47:19 PM
Now!

The Prayer Person figure on the west of the front entrance is not just any figure. It is a figure whom certain people have spent the past 5 years desperately trying to identify as some Depository employee other than Mr Oswald. Because they at least have the smarts to understand how the simple process of elimination works. And, the more zealous their efforts, the more they reveal their awareness of the problem which Prayer Person's enigmatic presence presents.

For these people, Anyone But Oswald will do!

Except, it turns out that no one other than Oswald will do...  :-[

Bill Shelley? Nope!
Billy Lovelady? Nope!
Roy Edward Lewis? Nope!
Pauline Sanders? Nope!
Ruth Dean? Nope!
Sarah Stanton! Nope!
Buell Wesley Frazier! Nope!
Madie Reese? Nope!
Eddie Piper? Nope! (Although Mr John Iacoletti may feel differently about this one, as he believes Prayer Person may possibly be a bald black man...)
Otis Williams? Nope!
Joe Molina? Nope!
etc!
etc!

And yet , through it all, Prayer Person still stands, still resembling Mr Oswald, and still located in that part of the doorway which the FBI agents who visited Mr Oswald's lookalike Mr Lovelady were evidently so worried about (viz., the west side).

If there were any way on earth to argue that Prayer Person were Mr Lovelady (i.e. if Prayer Person weren't seen standing next to Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman frames, and if Mr Lovelady hadn't testified to having left the steps by this time), then does anyone seriously doubt that the resemblance between Prayer Person and Mr Lovelady would have been acknowledged by 'serious researchers'?

Of course not! But when the stakes are raised----i.e. when not Mr Lovelady but Mr Lovelady's lookalike Mr Oswald turns out to be the sole remaining credible candidate for Prayer Person-----well... that's a whole different ballgame. That's when the Anyone But The Obvious Candidate sophistry kicks in.

And yet, through it all, Prayer Person still stands, still resembling Mr Oswald, still breaking LNer and Lunchroom-Story-Devotee hearts everywhere.  :'(

(https://s19.postimg.cc/asg9gdlar/Darnell.jpg)

 "And yet, through it all, Prayer Person still stands, still resembling Mr Oswald, still breaking LNer and Lunchroom-Story-Devotee hearts everywhere." 

  Not breaking my heart.  Big freaking deal that the person "resembles  Mr.Oswald".  Resembling Oswald and being Oswald = two different things.  You don't have an ounce of solid proof that it is Oswald. In fact, all the evidence--based upon the people who were standing in the entrance way to the TSBD--clobbers your theory to smithereens.  No one standing there saw the most famous criminal on earth on 11/22/63 standing in that area.  Had they, it would have immediately been reported as soon as Oswald was a reported suspect.  You have nothing but a conspiracy theory.  You conspiracy buffs are a dime a dozen.  Other than your opinion, provide proof that it's Oswald in the doorway.   Did anyone say they saw him in the entrance way while the assassination took place, or immediately thereafter? Did Buell Frazier say Oswald was standing there at any time during or after the shooting?    If they did, who are they?  Let's see some solid proof that someone saw Oswald in the entrance way of the TSBD after the shooting, like you claim
 we are seeing in the Darnell film frames .     
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 18, 2018, 04:14:36 PM
"And yet, through it all, Prayer Person still stands, still resembling Mr Oswald, still breaking LNer and Lunchroom-Story-Devotee hearts everywhere." 

  Not breaking my heart.  Big freaking deal that the person "resembles  Mr.Oswald".  Resembling Oswald and being Oswald = two different things.  You don't have an ounce of solid proof that it is Oswald. In fact, all the evidence--based upon the people who were standing in the entrance way to the TSBD--clobbers your theory to smithereens.  No one standing there saw the most famous criminal on earth on 11/22/63 standing in that area.  Had they, it would have immediately been reported as soon as Oswald was a reported suspect.  You have nothing but a conspiracy theory.  You conspiracy buffs are a dime a dozen.  Other than your opinion, provide proof that it's Oswald in the doorway.   Did anyone say they saw him in the entrance way while the assassination took place, or immediately thereafter? Did Buell Frazier say Oswald was standing there at any time during or after the shooting?    If they did, who are they?  Let's see some solid proof that someone saw Oswald in the entrance way of the TSBD after the shooting, like you claim
 we are seeing in the Darnell film frames .   

No one standing there saw the most famous criminal on earth on 11/22/63 standing in that area.  Had they, it would have immediately been reported as soon as Oswald was a reported suspect.

What makes you so sure that the latter did not happen [and possibly nobody wanted to know]? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right?

Did anyone say they saw him in the entrance way while the assassination took place, or immediately thereafter? Did Buell Frazier say Oswald was standing there at any time during or after the shooting? 

For lack of first hand knowledge, I assume not, but could it not be that people for whatever reason simply did not want to get involved by coming forward? Or is it your contention that witnesses always come forward and tell all, regardless of fear and possible consequences?   

Btw Frazier did say years later that, some time after the shots had been fired, he saw Oswald walking down Houston, coming from the TSBD loading dock, towards Elm, which is also something he never came forward with before and which is clearly something that conflicts with the official version of events.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 18, 2018, 04:26:55 PM
Big freaking deal that the person "resembles  Mr.Oswald".

So we agree that Prayer Person resembles Mr Oswald  Thumb1:

Now if only the evidence allowed you and your friends to
a---------------offer solid proof that Mr Oswald was somewhere else at the time!
b---------------claim that Prayer Person is Mr Oswald's lookalike co-worker Mr Lovelady!

Quote
Resembling Oswald and being Oswald = two different things.

Yes, that certainly explains the embarrassing vacillations of your star witness, Mr Howard Brennan!

Quote
You don't have an ounce of solid proof that it is Oswald.

You don't have an ounce of solid proof that Mr Oswald was up at the sixth-floor window.

We've got Prayer Man, which confirms Mr Oswald's claim to have been on the first floor at the time of the motorcade.
You, on the other hand, have got------

(https://i.imgur.com/Sl1lcmh.jpg)

Quote
No one standing there saw the most famous criminal on earth on 11/22/63 standing in that area.

The most famous criminal on earth? Golly, I had no idea the Walker shooting had attracted such public interest! How was Mr Oswald even allowed into the building for work that morning?  :o

Quote
Did Buell Frazier say Oswald was standing there at any time during or after the shooting?

Oh, I'm sure Mr Frazier told Captain Will Fritz that very night. You know, Captain Fritz-------the guy who threatened Mr Frazier with physical violence and with a charge of involvement in the plot to kill President Kennedy. The guy whose legacy you and your friends are trying to protect.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 19, 2018, 12:35:50 AM
Friends, it's good to remember what Bill Shelley actually said in his first-day affidavit:

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

The man usually identified as 'Shelley' in the Couch film is not Bill Shelley but Danny Arce:

(https://i.imgur.com/tPqR2lT.gif)

Now! As you watch the Couch gif, look closely at this man:

(https://i.imgur.com/P4EsYCE.jpg)

I believe this may be Bill Shelley, comforting a traumatised Gloria Calvery.



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 19, 2018, 08:10:14 PM
Friends, it's good to remember what Bill Shelley actually said in his first-day affidavit:

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

The man usually identified as 'Shelley' in the Couch film is not Bill Shelley but Danny Arce:

(https://i.imgur.com/tPqR2lT.gif)

Now! As you watch the Couch gif, look closely at this man:

(https://i.imgur.com/P4EsYCE.jpg)

I believe this may be Bill Shelley, comforting a traumatised Gloria Calvery.
As I am unable to ascertain any visible image matching your description, maybe additional information can be supplied. A quality film frame size blowup perhaps?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan J. Ford on November 19, 2018, 08:26:54 PM
Any claim placing LeeHarveyOswald on the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building Elm St Main Entrance stairs or landing during the shooting that fatally wounded USP JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr, and critically wounded TxG JohnBowdenConnallyJr, requires the ignoring and/or denial of the evidence indicating he was not there.
The timeframe for BillyNolanLovelady leaving the Elm St Entrance Portal was likely no more than 20-30 seconds after the shooting, and it is my conclusion that he mis-remembered the actual timing sequence of events. I base my conclusion on accompanying evidence of said timing, and as can be seen, DPD Officer ML BakerImage is running toward and approaching the entrance stairs as BillyNolanLoveladyImage and WilliamHoytShelleyImage appear to be walking west on the Old Elm St extension. --
Mr. Trotter

Appealing to your sense of honesty, Ever wonder Why of all people employed within that building, only one single individual, the wrongly accused, and his whereabouts was posed to everyone else in their individual statements.

Nary another employee in all of those statements submitted within Commission Exhibit 1381 were asked if anyone saw this employee or that employee, but rather strange that everyone accounted for the whereabouts of a single individual, notably that no one saw him...akin to parroting back the same rehearsed response.

Yet--given the various specific locations of the full body viewing the parade-- no one saw many other males and females that afternoon either. Why all the focus upon just a single individual?

We can only hope people were not convinced they were "mistaken" if they actually said they saw the wrongly accused standing outside as the presidential limousine passed by, even placing them under the threat of perjury--or worse-- if they ever found the courage to come forward at a later date to say otherwise.

In respect to reconstructing the movements of the principals I believe it's best to hone in on same day statements as best we are able to. Had a boss once who use to tell me even if something happened it didn't happen if I didn't write it down, thus my healthy respect for statements written as close to the actual experience as possible. Without a doubt everything happened that afternoon, but the key is to reconstruct the scene with as much integrity as possible, void of a desired outcome.



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 20, 2018, 12:01:05 AM
Any claim placing LeeHarveyOswald on the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building Elm St Main Entrance stairs or landing during the shooting that fatally wounded USP JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr, and critically wounded TxG JohnBowdenConnallyJr, requires the ignoring and/or denial of the evidence indicating he was not there.
The timeframe for BillyNolanLovelady leaving the Elm St Entrance Portal was likely no more than 20-30 seconds after the shooting, and it is my conclusion that he mis-remembered the actual timing sequence of events. I base my conclusion on accompanying evidence of said timing, and as can be seen, DPD Officer ML BakerImage is running toward and approaching the entrance stairs as BillyNolanLoveladyImage and WilliamHoytShelleyImage appear to be walking west on the Old Elm St extension. --
Mr. Trotter

Appealing to your sense of honesty, Ever wonder Why of all people employed within that building, only one single individual, the wrongly accused, and his whereabouts was posed to everyone else in their individual statements.

Nary another employee in all of those statements submitted within Commission Exhibit 1381 were asked if anyone saw this employee or that employee, but rather strange that everyone accounted for the whereabouts of a single individual, notably that no one saw him...akin to parroting back the same rehearsed response.

Yet--given the various specific locations of the full body viewing the parade-- no one saw many other males and females that afternoon either. Why all the focus upon just a single individual?

We can only hope people were not convinced they were "mistaken" if they actually said they saw the wrongly accused standing outside as the presidential limousine passed by, even placing them under the threat of perjury--or worse-- if they ever found the courage to come forward at a later date to say otherwise.

In respect to reconstructing the movements of the principals I believe it's best to hone in on same day statements as best we are able to. Had a boss once who use to tell me even if something happened it didn't happen if I didn't write it down, thus my healthy respect for statements written as close to the actual experience as possible. Without a doubt everything happened that afternoon, but the key is to reconstruct the scene with as much integrity as possible, void of a desired outcome.
Though never to face trial or conviction, circumstances indicated LeeHarveyOswald to be a suspect in the DealeyPlazaShooting of JohnKennedySr and JohnConnallyJr, as well as the OakCliffShooting of JD Tippit, so it is absolutely within reason for the questioning of witnesses regarding LHO's activities on 11/22/'63. Any scene reconstruction with integrity cannot place LHO on the landing and in the PrayerPersonImage space.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 20, 2018, 08:10:19 AM
I'd like to point out that near the end of Couch or Darnell (I get them mixed up) in the Couch-Darnell synchronized clip by Gerda Dunkel, a young woman wearing a black knee-length skirt and a white blouse, just like our "Running Woman," can be seen in the distance, getting up from the grass or the cement "patio" on the grassy slope by the pavilion and starting to run towards the pavilion entrance/exit in the general direction of the Elm Street Extension, but this person couldn't be our "Running Woman" because our "Running Woman" has already appeared in the same clip a few seconds earlier.

FWIW

--  Tommy
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 20, 2018, 09:36:21 AM
Welcome to the madhouse, Tommy.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2018, 01:05:37 PM
Now!

Let us look again at Mr Bill Shelley's first-day affidavit------

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

--------and make two elementary observations:

1! Mr Shelley says he 'ran into' Ms Calvery after, and only after, he had run 'across the street to the corner of the park'
2! Mr Shelley makes no mention of Mr Billy Lovelady as having been a party to this interaction with Ms Calvery

For some reason, Mr Shelley will suffer a bout of altered memory syndrome when faced-----months later------with questioning by the Warren Commission: he will relocate the encounter with Ms Calvery to the steps, and bring Mr Lovelady into the picture when talking about leaving those steps.

Whatever about
-------------the whereabouts of Mr Lovelady at the moment Mr Shelley 'runs into' Ms Calvery;
-------------whether or not Mr Lovelady had an interaction with Ms Calvery at some other moment and in some other spot;
-------------Mr Shelley's reasons for changing his story for the Warren Commission;
we can state with great confidence that Mr Shelley was the one who had a significant interaction with Ms Calvery at 'the corner of the park'.

I believe that Couch's camera caught this interaction, which involved Mr Shelley comforting a traumatised Ms Calvery, who had fallen crying into his arms:

(https://i.imgur.com/tPqR2lT.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/P4EsYCE.jpg)

But no!, I hear you exclaim. It is preposterous to think that Mr Shelley would be on such informal terms with his fellow Depository employee Ms Calvery as to give her a consoling hug like that!

Think again, and ponder one simple fact:

In June of that very year, Mr Shelley had been best man at Ms Calvery's (then Miss Gloria Jean Little's) wedding.

They were friends. And Couch captures him instinctively being a good friend to her in this awful situation.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan J. Ford on November 20, 2018, 05:41:41 PM
One more observation before lunch break here, examine the Zapruder image again ---->

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0geKebdKfRbm9EAlxpXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0NmIyc21uBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjU4NTlfMQRzZWMDcGl2cw--?p=zapruder+film+spectators&fr2=piv-web&fr=yfp-t#id=1&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fs.newsweek.com%2Fsites%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fembedded_full%2Fpublic%2F2014%2F11%2F17%2F1121jfk02.jpg%3Fitok%3DH-HMjVe4&action=click

Note the two men standing on Jane Berry's right...Not the otherwise trio of women Gloria Calvery says she stood with, never mentions any males in her group/vicinity. Nor do the other women within their statements. There's a reason for that ---->

Gloria Calvery is not Jane Berry, nor was she ever "running woman". Back after recess. Bon appetite.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 20, 2018, 05:57:27 PM
If you look closely at 'Lovelady' in the Couch film (he's the man walking past Danny Arce), you will see that his back right trouser pocket appears to be bulging to a remarkable extent.

(https://i.imgur.com/tPqR2lT.gif)

Explanation!

He is carrying a dark object in his right hand.

If he is indeed Mr Lovelady, then the object must be his dark jacket--------the dark jacket we have seen covering his right upper body in the Wiegman frames  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 21, 2018, 03:21:24 AM
I could care less about his theories re two Oswalds.  The topic I am referring to is "Prayer Woman". 
Why do you buffs always assume that people who believe O to be guilty of shooting and killing President Kennedy are advocates of the Warren Report?  While the commission did get some things right, not everything is right.  It's ridiculous that you buffs assume so much. 

 And while I'm at it...this crime is 55 years old Thursday.  Is this all you have going on in your life?

It seems to occupy you just as much, so is this all you have going in your life?


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Barber on November 21, 2018, 03:00:48 PM
It seems to occupy you just as much, so is this all you have going in your life?
 
 I have a total of 178 comments on this board compared to your 861, and you have the nerve to ask such a stupid question?  No, it doesn't occupy my time "just as much". Not by a long shot. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 21, 2018, 03:18:15 PM
 
 I have a total of 178 comments on this board compared to your 861, and you have the nerve to ask such a stupid question?  No, it doesn't occupy my time "just as much". Not by a long shot.

The number of postings on this board is hardly relevant. Far more revealing is just how many years you have been occupied with this case.....but I bet you don't want to talk about that, do you now?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Barber on November 21, 2018, 03:23:05 PM
The number of postings on this board is hardly relevant. Far more revealing is just how many years you have been occupied with this case.....but I bet you don't want to talk about that, do you now?

 What difference does it make to you how long I have studied the assassination?  Have you done anything during the time you have spent with it, other than posting in forums?  I have. Do you want to talk about that? 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 21, 2018, 03:44:39 PM
What difference does it make to you how long I have studied the assassination?  Have you done anything during the time you have spent with it, other than posting in forums?  I have. Do you want to talk about that?

What difference does it make to you how long I have studied the assassination?

No difference whatsoever. I couldn't care less what you do, but when you get high and mighty and start throwing classic LN comments like "Is this all you have going on in your life?" around you perhaps should be mindfull that people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

You've been studiying this case for years, and even publishing about it as well as throwing your name around wherever you can and then you have the audacity to ask another member of this board if "this is all you have going on in your life". It's pathetic! 

As far as I'm concerned, I am actually only a member of this board with an average of 2.7 posts per day. I'm doing this purely out of some level of interest in the case and I do not have the urge or time to do anything more than that, as I normally have far better things to do with my life. Fighting a battle that can not be won is just a waste of time.

Have you done anything during the time you have spent with it, other than posting in forums?  I have.

Exactly my point! Well, is this all you have going in your life?

Just because you have been occupied with this case for some time doesn't make you an expert or superior to others, no matter what you think of yourself. The fact is that we are all people and there isn't anybody alive who gets things right all the time. We all have opinions that sometimes are wrong and we all make mistakes. If you start attacking people that disagree with you, it is you who loses as it is a clear demonstration of your own inability to persuade others that your opinion is the correct one. It's weakness pure and simple. This is supposed to be a forum where opinions are exchanged. You (and others like you) seem to regard it as some sort of competition that needs to be won and that's just sad.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Barber on November 21, 2018, 04:24:51 PM

What difference does it make to you how long I have studied the assassination?

No difference whatsoever. I couldn't care less what you do, but when you get high and mighty and start throwing classic LN comments like "Is this all you have going on in your life?" around you perhaps should be mindfull that people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

"High and mighty"?  Hardly.  First of all, I wasn't addressing you, so what are you? Ford's water boy?  You two behave just like Ben Holmes and his water boy, David Healy, the two clowns at the nuthouse.  My remark was to Ford--not you.  So lay off with the third degree.

You've been studiying this case for years, and even publishing about it as well as throwing your name around wherever you can and then you have the audacity to ask another member of this board if "this is all you have going on in your life". It's pathetic! 

"Pathetic"?  No, what I said is not pathetic.  What is pathetic is how you conspiracy nutters all treat the evidence of the assassination.  That which you don't like you call "altered", "faked" "a hoax" and so on. Now, you nutters are going around claiming that Mrs. Kennedy killed her husband, John Connally had a gun strapped to his ankle and he shot the president, Zapruder's camera had a gun, the knoll was camouflaged and the gunman hid under the camouflage, that Greer shot the president, that aliens killed the president, that someone on the overpass killed the president, that someone on the south knoll killed the president, and the list grows and grows, without an ounce of evidence to support!  THAT is what is "pathetic"!
so, coming in here and posting once in awhile is "throwing my name around"?  Since when?  Since you say it is?  I don't come in here and "throw [my]name around". In fact, I don't bring up the topic which I am involved with at all in this forum. So again, lay off with the third degree, and stop making accusations that you cannot back up because they do not exist!

As far as I'm concerned, I am actually only a member of this board with an average of 2.7 posts per day. I'm doing this purely out of some level of interest in the case and I do not have the urge or time to do anything more than that, as I normally have far better things to do with my life. Fighting a battle that can not be won is just a waste of time.

"Fighting a battle that can not be won is just a waste of time".  Yet, here you are, arguing with people over who killed President Kennedy 55 years ago, and arguing in defense of the communist marxist loser who killed him.

Have you done anything during the time you have spent with it, other than posting in forums?  I have.

Exactly my point! Well, is this all you have going in your life?

 Nope! I am also a professional musician and am very busy with that, which gives me limited time to do much else. I like to keep up with what is going on, however, and read two jfk related discussion boards.   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 21, 2018, 04:56:57 PM

"High and mighty"?  Hardly.  First of all, I wasn't addressing you, so what are you? Ford's water boy?  You two behave just like Ben Holmes and his water boy, David Healy, the two clowns at the nuthouse.  My remark was to Ford--not you.  So lay off with the third degree.


Classic LN crap and I will ask you a question when I want to, just like you did with Alan Ford. This is a forum and that's what it is for.

Quote
"Pathetic"?  No, what I said is not pathetic. 

Of course it was, but I didn't expect you to admit it.

What is pathetic is how you conspiracy nutters all treat the evidence of the assassination.  That which you don't like you call "altered", "faked" "a hoax" and so on.

A bit like calling witnesses mistaken or simply liars when they say something you don't like. Is that what you mean? Spare me the hipocrisy!

Quote
Now, you nutters are going around claiming that Mrs. Kennedy killed her husband, John Connally had a gun strapped to his ankle and he shot the president, Zapruder's camera had a gun, the knoll was camouflaged and the gunman hid under the camouflage, that Greer shot the president, that aliens killed the president, that someone on the overpass killed the president, that someone on the south knoll killed the president, and the list grows and grows, without an ounce of evidence to support!  THAT is what is "pathetic"!


Yes, I agree. That's indeed pathetic. But I have never said anything of the sort, so why bring it up?

Quote
so, coming in here and posting once in awhile is "throwing my name around"?  Since when?  Since you say it is?  I don't come in here and "throw [my]name around". In fact, I don't bring up the topic which I am involved with at all in this forum. So again, lay off with the third degree, and stop making accusations that you cannot back up because they do not exist!

So you weren't going to tell me what "great stuff" you have been doing, when you said;

"Have you done anything during the time you have spent with it, other than posting in forums?  I have. "

because that would be throwing your weight around, wouldn't it. It was just a casual remark not intended to impress, right? 

Quote
As far as I'm concerned, I am actually only a member of this board with an average of 2.7 posts per day. I'm doing this purely out of some level of interest in the case and I do not have the urge or time to do anything more than that, as I normally have far better things to do with my life. Fighting a battle that can not be won is just a waste of time.

"Fighting a battle that can not be won is just a waste of time".  Yet, here you are, arguing with people over who killed President Kennedy 55 years ago, and arguing in defense of the communist marxist loser who killed him.

Of course it is a battle that can't be won. Do you really think there is any member on this forum with the idea that he/she can break the case wide open and expose all the official shenanigans that might have been going on? Of course not, and yes I am here discussing the case purely as a matter of interest. I don't care about the players in this drama and I have said that many times over. I'm merely interested in what really happened. I don't know if Oswald was the lone gunman he is made out to be or if something else was going on and I don't really care either way. If Oswald did it alone, he got what he deserved. On the other hand, if there was a conspiracy, so be it. But before I take your word for it which option it is I would like to examine the evidence myself.

And, btw, I have never argued in defense of Oswald, but you, as a zealous defender of the faith, will likely always consider asking crititcal questions as arguing in defense of Oswald. It's the classic LN illness! 

Quote

Have you done anything during the time you have spent with it, other than posting in forums?  I have.

Exactly my point! Well, is this all you have going in your life?


Nope! I am also a professional musician and am very busy with that, which gives me limited time to do much else. I like to keep up with what is going on, however, and read two jfk related discussion boards.

Good for you that you still find the time to study recordings of gunshots and accoustics, write essays about that and posting YouTube videos. I wouldn't have the time for all that.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan J. Ford on November 21, 2018, 05:21:26 PM
In the following video, courtesy of photo-journalist Dave Wiegman, at the 1:12 mark, there?s a woman walking along the street.  To her right-front at 45 degrees is a woman dressed in the same clothing colours as the genuine ?running woman?.


Texas School Book Depository employee Georgia Ruth Hendrix?s FBI statement on March 24, 1964 ---->

?At approximately 12:15 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the Depository Building and took up a position along the parade route along Elm Street about 150 feet west from the Depository Building entrance and viewed the presidential motorcade? I recall that just a few seconds after the car in which President John F. Kennedy was riding passed the position where I was standing, I heard a shot. At first I thought it was salute to the President, but when the second shot was fired and I saw the President fall down in the car I knew someone was shooting at him. When I heard the third shot I turned and fled back into the Depository Building.? ---->
 

Now, that Mrs. Hendrix in her statement above (watch the corresponding video too) has explained her actions, let?s narrow down precisely where Mrs. Stanton (RIP) stood on the entrance steps that afternoon ---->

Mrs. Robert E. Sanders (Pauline), Sr Clerk Accountant

"At approximately 12 :20 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the lunchroom on the second floor of
the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the Presidential Motorcade
which I knew was due to pass the Depository building at about 12 :30 PM. I took up a position at
the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my
recollection I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance."

"I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am
unsure as to the others.


With Mrs. Stanton?s precise location now established, please be mindful there are five employees standing in her vicinity that she would now have to teleport over and through to assume a position held by a man. Not to belabour the point but there is a rail bar on the stairs there she would have to hurdle as well (please excuse the eye-roll). Too bad the US Olympic Committee wasn?t on hand that afternoon to recruit her for 1964 for her hurdling skills...

Now, before we get to three separate instances where the male figure retains his position without any chance for Mrs. Stanton to teleport five human being beings directly in her path to assume his identity, here?s an email exchange I had with a family member of Mrs. Stanton ---->

On Jun 12, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon, Xxxxxxx (well it may be only morning where you are or just about noon...just the same have a good day),
>
> Trust your weekend was relaxing and time well spent with your loved ones--friends and family. Nothing new here on my end, but I would like to ask you several questions, which by all means you are at liberty not to answer if you care not to.

To   Alan Ford a1anford@aol.com
X Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxx@xxxxx.com)To:you Details
image123.png (9.7 MB)
My grandmother

Sent from my iPhone
About your questions...her hair was white possibly premature gray short and curly
image125.jpeg (230 KB)

5?4 to 5?6 very heavyset just like the picture I sent from the 60s in a park with her son... you can also tell her hair was light by then...Her weight then and up until the time she passed is why there are very few photos of her...she did not like taking them.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 PM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Aww...you must be very proud of her, Xxxxxxx, She looks so kind and unassuming. Makes me recall fond memories of my own Mum.
>
> Cannot thank you enough for your kindness, patience and generous nature, Xxxxxxx, it is appreciated. In fairness to you, I feel like I owe you at least an explanation about my inquiry into your paternal-grandmother's physical appearance in the early 1960's. Two men who worked in her building described her as short and heavy-set on the very day President Kennedy was assassinated.

I just wanted to get confirmation of this. Fido is nudging his wet nose on the screen, signaling he wants to go out to answer nature's call before we turn in. This dog never seems to bother me unless I'm in mid-sentence. Trust all is well with you & yours this evening. Thanks so very MUCH for your time, Xxxxxxx.
>
> Alan

Did you note her distinctive hair colour? It?s MUCH lighter than the actual male individual she is supposed to be.

Did you note her girth? It?s 3X the size of the individual male figure some want her to be. In spite of these hocus-pocus attempts, in all three separate instances of photos of that gentleman, he remains well under 150lbs, nowhere near 200, 250, and let alone 300lbs.

Now, because I?m not in my familiar realm, with access to my research photos to share here, I ask that those of you reading along familiarize yourself with the film and/or photos of the following three photo-journalist: Mr. Couch (Malcolm); Mr. Darnell (Jimmy); and, Mr. Wiegman (Dave).

The significance of their respective contributions at different intervals proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the only unidentified male in Commission Exhibit 1381 continually holds his specific location in each of their filming intervals. These gentlemen confirm the Same person remains in the Same position throughout their respective filming sequence.

Given the above confirmation, How and When, Mrs. Stanton (RIP) teleports herself over into the polar opposite corner of her own stated position (in her own words, not mine & further confirmed by Mrs. Sanders (Pauline) makes even the magic-bullet blush.
Let?s not kid ourselves any longer?it?s way past time to give Mr. Murphy (Sean)the benefit of the doubt here, and summon the courage to fully examine his individual?s genuine identity moving forward, not because some of us will be right or wrong, but because truth matters. G-d bless you, Sean Murphy, Cheers M8

As I take leave amid the pending holiday rush ahead of us (Em is so full of beans today, thus pressing the need for us to get ahead of the projected, heavy holiday traffic volume), so, I?m left with no choice ladies & gentlemen but to end here for now until the new year. Back next year G-d willing to discuss this matter further in the full monty. Until then, best wishes to all for a safe, wonderful, memorable and Happy Holiday season.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 21, 2018, 07:59:08 PM
In the following video, courtesy of photo-journalist Dave Wiegman, at the 1:12 mark, there?s a woman walking along the street.  To her right-front at 45 degrees is a woman dressed in the same clothing colours as the genuine ?running woman?.


Texas School Book Depository employee Georgia Ruth Hendrix?s FBI statement on March 24, 1964 ---->

?At approximately 12:15 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the Depository Building and took up a position along the parade route along Elm Street about 150 feet west from the Depository Building entrance and viewed the presidential motorcade? I recall that just a few seconds after the car in which President John F. Kennedy was riding passed the position where I was standing, I heard a shot. At first I thought it was salute to the President, but when the second shot was fired and I saw the President fall down in the car I knew someone was shooting at him. When I heard the third shot I turned and fled back into the Depository Building.? ---->
 

Now, that Mrs. Hendrix in her statement above (watch the corresponding video too) has explained her actions, let?s narrow down precisely where Mrs. Stanton (RIP) stood on the entrance steps that afternoon ---->

Mrs. Robert E. Sanders (Pauline), Sr Clerk Accountant

"At approximately 12 :20 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the lunchroom on the second floor of
the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the Presidential Motorcade
which I knew was due to pass the Depository building at about 12 :30 PM. I took up a position at
the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my
recollection I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance."

"I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am
unsure as to the others.


With Mrs. Stanton?s precise location now established, please be mindful there are five employees standing in her vicinity that she would now have to teleport over and through to assume a position held by a man. Not to belabour the point but there is a rail bar on the stairs there she would have to hurdle as well (please excuse the eye-roll). Too bad the US Olympic Committee wasn?t on hand that afternoon to recruit her for 1964 for her hurdling skills...

Now, before we get to three separate instances where the male figure retains his position without any chance for Mrs. Stanton to teleport five human being beings directly in her path to assume his identity, here?s an email exchange I had with a family member of Mrs. Stanton ---->

On Jun 12, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon, Xxxxxxx (well it may be only morning where you are or just about noon...just the same have a good day),
>
> Trust your weekend was relaxing and time well spent with your loved ones--friends and family. Nothing new here on my end, but I would like to ask you several questions, which by all means you are at liberty not to answer if you care not to.

To   Alan Ford a1anford@aol.com
X Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxx@xxxxx.com)To:you Details
image123.png (9.7 MB)
My grandmother

Sent from my iPhone
About your questions...her hair was white possibly premature gray short and curly
image125.jpeg (230 KB)

5?4 to 5?6 very heavyset just like the picture I sent from the 60s in a park with her son... you can also tell her hair was light by then...Her weight then and up until the time she passed is why there are very few photos of her...she did not like taking them.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 PM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Aww...you must be very proud of her, Xxxxxxx, She looks so kind and unassuming. Makes me recall fond memories of my own Mum.
>
> Cannot thank you enough for your kindness, patience and generous nature, Xxxxxxx, it is appreciated. In fairness to you, I feel like I owe you at least an explanation about my inquiry into your paternal-grandmother's physical appearance in the early 1960's. Two men who worked in her building described her as short and heavy-set on the very day President Kennedy was assassinated.

I just wanted to get confirmation of this. Fido is nudging his wet nose on the screen, signaling he wants to go out to answer nature's call before we turn in. This dog never seems to bother me unless I'm in mid-sentence. Trust all is well with you & yours this evening. Thanks so very MUCH for your time, Xxxxxxx.
>
> Alan

Did you note her distinctive hair colour? It?s MUCH lighter than the actual male individual she is supposed to be.

Did you note her girth? It?s 3X the size of the individual male figure some want her to be. In spite of these hocus-pocus attempts, in all three separate instances of photos of that gentleman, he remains well under 150lbs, nowhere near 200, 250, and let alone 300lbs.

Now, because I?m not in my familiar realm, with access to my research photos to share here, I ask that those of you reading along familiarize yourself with the film and/or photos of the following three photo-journalist: Mr. Couch (Malcolm); Mr. Darnell (Jimmy); and, Mr. Wiegman (Dave).

The significance of their respective contributions at different intervals proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the only unidentified male in Commission Exhibit 1381 continually holds his specific location in each of their filming intervals. These gentlemen confirm the Same person remains in the Same position throughout their respective filming sequence.

Given the above confirmation, How and When, Mrs. Stanton (RIP) teleports herself over into the polar opposite corner of her own stated position (in her own words, not mine & further confirmed by Mrs. Sanders (Pauline) makes even the magic-bullet blush.
Let?s not kid ourselves any longer?it?s way past time to give Mr. Murphy (Sean)the benefit of the doubt here, and summon the courage to fully examine his individual?s genuine identity moving forward, not because some of us will be right or wrong, but because truth matters. G-d bless you, Sean Murphy, Cheers M8

As I take leave amid the pending holiday rush ahead of us (Em is so full of beans today, thus pressing the need for us to get ahead of the projected, heavy holiday traffic volume), so, I?m left with no choice ladies & gentlemen but to end here for now until the new year. Back next year G-d willing to discuss this matter further in the full monty. Until then, best wishes to all for a safe, wonderful, memorable and Happy Holiday season.

A wonderfully informative post, sir. Thank you!  Thumb1:

As we approach the 55th anniversary of JFK's death, and 5 years on from the first outburst of argument about Prayer Man, the Anyone-But-Oswald brigade are angrier than ever, more disingenuous than ever and-------all out of ideas on the Alternative Candidate front.

Looks like they haven't got a prayer, man.

Looks like it really is Oswald up on those steps.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 21, 2018, 07:59:46 PM
In the following video, courtesy of photo-journalist Dave Wiegman, at the 1:12 mark, there?s a woman walking along the street.  To her right-front at 45 degrees is a woman dressed in the same clothing colours as the genuine ?running woman?.


Texas School Book Depository employee Georgia Ruth Hendrix?s FBI statement on March 24, 1964 ---->

?At approximately 12:15 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the Depository Building and took up a position along the parade route along Elm Street about 150 feet west from the Depository Building entrance and viewed the presidential motorcade? I recall that just a few seconds after the car in which President John F. Kennedy was riding passed the position where I was standing, I heard a shot. At first I thought it was salute to the President, but when the second shot was fired and I saw the President fall down in the car I knew someone was shooting at him. When I heard the third shot I turned and fled back into the Depository Building.? ---->
 

Now, that Mrs. Hendrix in her statement above (watch the corresponding video too) has explained her actions, let?s narrow down precisely where Mrs. Stanton (RIP) stood on the entrance steps that afternoon ---->

Mrs. Robert E. Sanders (Pauline), Sr Clerk Accountant

"At approximately 12 :20 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the lunchroom on the second floor of
the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the Presidential Motorcade
which I knew was due to pass the Depository building at about 12 :30 PM. I took up a position at
the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my
recollection I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance."

"I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am
unsure as to the others.


With Mrs. Stanton?s precise location now established, please be mindful there are five employees standing in her vicinity that she would now have to teleport over and through to assume a position held by a man. Not to belabour the point but there is a rail bar on the stairs there she would have to hurdle as well (please excuse the eye-roll). Too bad the US Olympic Committee wasn?t on hand that afternoon to recruit her for 1964 for her hurdling skills...

Now, before we get to three separate instances where the male figure retains his position without any chance for Mrs. Stanton to teleport five human being beings directly in her path to assume his identity, here?s an email exchange I had with a family member of Mrs. Stanton ---->

On Jun 12, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon, Xxxxxxx (well it may be only morning where you are or just about noon...just the same have a good day),
>
> Trust your weekend was relaxing and time well spent with your loved ones--friends and family. Nothing new here on my end, but I would like to ask you several questions, which by all means you are at liberty not to answer if you care not to.

To   Alan Ford a1anford@aol.com
X Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxx@xxxxx.com)To:you Details
image123.png (9.7 MB)
My grandmother

Sent from my iPhone
About your questions...her hair was white possibly premature gray short and curly
image125.jpeg (230 KB)

5?4 to 5?6 very heavyset just like the picture I sent from the 60s in a park with her son... you can also tell her hair was light by then...Her weight then and up until the time she passed is why there are very few photos of her...she did not like taking them.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 PM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Aww...you must be very proud of her, Xxxxxxx, She looks so kind and unassuming. Makes me recall fond memories of my own Mum.
>
> Cannot thank you enough for your kindness, patience and generous nature, Xxxxxxx, it is appreciated. In fairness to you, I feel like I owe you at least an explanation about my inquiry into your paternal-grandmother's physical appearance in the early 1960's. Two men who worked in her building described her as short and heavy-set on the very day President Kennedy was assassinated.

I just wanted to get confirmation of this. Fido is nudging his wet nose on the screen, signaling he wants to go out to answer nature's call before we turn in. This dog never seems to bother me unless I'm in mid-sentence. Trust all is well with you & yours this evening. Thanks so very MUCH for your time, Xxxxxxx.
>
> Alan

Did you note her distinctive hair colour? It?s MUCH lighter than the actual male individual she is supposed to be.

Did you note her girth? It?s 3X the size of the individual male figure some want her to be. In spite of these hocus-pocus attempts, in all three separate instances of photos of that gentleman, he remains well under 150lbs, nowhere near 200, 250, and let alone 300lbs.

Now, because I?m not in my familiar realm, with access to my research photos to share here, I ask that those of you reading along familiarize yourself with the film and/or photos of the following three photo-journalist: Mr. Couch (Malcolm); Mr. Darnell (Jimmy); and, Mr. Wiegman (Dave).

The significance of their respective contributions at different intervals proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the only unidentified male in Commission Exhibit 1381 continually holds his specific location in each of their filming intervals. These gentlemen confirm the Same person remains in the Same position throughout their respective filming sequence.

Given the above confirmation, How and When, Mrs. Stanton (RIP) teleports herself over into the polar opposite corner of her own stated position (in her own words, not mine & further confirmed by Mrs. Sanders (Pauline) makes even the magic-bullet blush.
Let?s not kid ourselves any longer?it?s way past time to give Mr. Murphy (Sean)the benefit of the doubt here, and summon the courage to fully examine his individual?s genuine identity moving forward, not because some of us will be right or wrong, but because truth matters. G-d bless you, Sean Murphy, Cheers M8

As I take leave amid the pending holiday rush ahead of us (Em is so full of beans today, thus pressing the need for us to get ahead of the projected, heavy holiday traffic volume), so, I?m left with no choice ladies & gentlemen but to end here for now until the new year. Back next year G-d willing to discuss this matter further in the full monty. Until then, best wishes to all for a safe, wonderful, memorable and Happy Holiday season.
PrayerPersonImage is that of a MalePerson? I have seen no reliable indicative provable evidence of that claim.
SarahStanton's precise location has been established? I have seen no reliable indicative provable evidence of her "precise location" anywhere other than in the PrayerPersonImage space.
Is it your claim, AlanFord, that AlanFord had a telephone conversation with a CloseRelative of SarahDeanStanton? Can you provide reliable indicative provable evidence for said claim? 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Barber on November 22, 2018, 12:43:53 AM
Classic LN crap and I will ask you a question when I want to, just like you did with Alan Ford. This is a forum and that's what it is for.

 Do yourself a favor while you do that.  Knock it off with the sarcasm and the condescending.

A bit like calling witnesses mistaken or simply liars when they say something you don't like. Is that what you mean? Spare me the hipocrisy!

 You mean the way you conspiracy nutters do with witnesses, like Bill and Gayle Newman, Zapruder and Sitzman, Hargis, Brehm,  and Mrs. Kennedy--all of whom said the head wound was nowhere near the back of the head where you conspiracy nutters claim the head was blown off?
 Spare me!


Yes, I agree. That's indeed pathetic. But I have never said anything of the sort, so why bring it up?

Well, I can't list everything you conspiracy nutters come up with.  It would take a lifetime to list all of the wacky theories you folks have come up with.  Sorry I didn't specifically mention yours.


So you weren't going to tell me what "great stuff" you have been doing, when you said;

"Have you done anything during the time you have spent with it, other than posting in forums?  I have. "

because that would be throwing your weight around, wouldn't it. It was just a casual remark not intended to impress, right? 

 Nope! I had no intentions of bringing it up. As I said, I don't bring up the acoustics topic in this forum.  I was merely responding to your question.  If you don't like the response, tough!

Of course it is a battle that can't be won. Do you really think there is any member on this forum with the idea that he/she can break the case wide open and expose all the official shenanigans that might have been going on? Of course not, and yes I am here discussing the case purely as a matter of interest. I don't care about the players in this drama and I have said that many times over. I'm merely interested in what really happened. I don't know if Oswald was the lone gunman he is made out to be or if something else was going on and I don't really care either way. If Oswald did it alone, he got what he deserved. On the other hand, if there was a conspiracy, so be it. But before I take your word for it which option it is I would like to examine the evidence myself.

Yes, and you like to be a dick about things that people post in support of their evidence when it doesn't suit your preconceived notions of what may have happened or did happen..  I know exactly what you are doing. It's all over this forum in every thread.


And, btw, I have never argued in defense of Oswald, but you, as a zealous defender of the faith, will likely always consider asking critical questions as arguing in defense of Oswald. It's the classic LN illness! 

 You talk about "illness"?  You conspiracy nutters are usually claiming that "LN" "drank the kool aid" , are "sheeple", and so forth, when you folks are the ones who have been brainwashed by conspiracy authors. That is your illness!  You cannot say the same for
 "LN" because books written saying Oswald did it are scarce.  There aren't that many "LN" books in comparison to the hundreds and hundreds of conspiracy books.


Good for you that you still find the time to study recordings of gunshots and accoustics, write essays about that and posting YouTube videos. I wouldn't have the time for all that.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 22, 2018, 01:31:38 AM
Could you please be so kind to try and understand how this forum works, so that I can reply to your comments without having to copy/paste everything?

Quote
Classic LN crap and I will ask you a question when I want to, just like you did with Alan Ford. This is a forum and that's what it is for.

Do yourself a favor while you do that.  Knock it off with the sarcasm and the condescending.

Pot meet kettle

Quote
A bit like calling witnesses mistaken or simply liars when they say something you don't like. Is that what you mean? Spare me the hipocrisy!

You mean the way you conspiracy nutters do with witnesses, like Bill and Gayle Newman, Zapruder and Sitzman, Hargis, Brehm,  and Mrs. Kennedy--all of whom said the head wound was nowhere near the back of the head where you conspiracy nutters claim the head was blown off?  Spare me! 

Are you talking to me or is it just delirium setting in? You seem to have a major problem with "conspiracy nutters" but I haven't got a clue what you are going on about.

Quote
Yes, I agree. That's indeed pathetic. But I have never said anything of the sort, so why bring it up?

Well, I can't list everything you conspiracy nutters come up with.  It would take a lifetime to list all of the wacky theories you folks have come up with.  Sorry I didn't specifically mention yours. 

Two comments; (1) I haven't presented any kind of theory ever, simply because I don't have one and (2) you seem to be suffering from paranoia, if you believe you can lump all the sceptics together and treat them equally.

Quote
So you weren't going to tell me what "great stuff" you have been doing, when you said;

"Have you done anything during the time you have spent with it, other than posting in forums?  I have. "

because that would be throwing your weight around, wouldn't it. It was just a casual remark not intended to impress, right? 

Nope! I had no intentions of bringing it up. As I said, I don't bring up the acoustics topic in this forum.  I was merely responding to your question.  If you don't like the response, tough!



So, tell me what did you mean when you said that you have been spending your time with the case on other things than posting in forums?

Quote
Of course it is a battle that can't be won. Do you really think there is any member on this forum with the idea that he/she can break the case wide open and expose all the official shenanigans that might have been going on? Of course not, and yes I am here discussing the case purely as a matter of interest. I don't care about the players in this drama and I have said that many times over. I'm merely interested in what really happened. I don't know if Oswald was the lone gunman he is made out to be or if something else was going on and I don't really care either way. If Oswald did it alone, he got what he deserved. On the other hand, if there was a conspiracy, so be it. But before I take your word for it which option it is I would like to examine the evidence myself.

Yes, and you like to be a dick about things that people post in support of their evidence when it doesn't suit your preconceived notions of what may have happened or did happen..  I know exactly what you are doing. It's all over this forum in every thread.

Oh you poor poor man, how in the world would you even know what (if any) my "preconceived notions" are. Fact is your haven't got a clue and you, like other LNs, simply don't like it when too critical questions are asked about the evidence. It only tells me just how little faith and confidence you have in your own evidence.

Bottom line; if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And please stop whining?. it's embarrasing!

Quote
And, btw, I have never argued in defense of Oswald, but you, as a zealous defender of the faith, will likely always consider asking critical questions as arguing in defense of Oswald. It's the classic LN illness! 

You talk about "illness"?  You conspiracy nutters are usually claiming that "LN" "drank the kool aid" , are "sheeple", and so forth, when you folks are the ones who have been brainwashed by conspiracy authors. That is your illness!  You cannot say the same for
 "LN" because books written saying Oswald did it are scarce.  There aren't that many "LN" books in comparison to the hundreds and hundreds of conspiracy books.


Touchy and paranoid... I haven't been brainwashed by anybody. In fact the only book I have read in this case is the WC report. I am not interested in the opinions of writers of books, be they pro or con.... I prefer to find out for myself, and believe me I have....

I have no horse in this race. I couldn't care less if Oswald did it alone or if there was a conspiracy. I just would like to know what really happened. My world view will remain intact either way, but for you, your world view would be completely destroyed if it turned out Oswald wasn't the lone gunman after all and that's just sad. 

One final comment; there will always be people like me, who - unlike you - do not swallow the offical story hook, line and sinker. Regardless of what the history books say, in the public domain the "Oswald did it alone" gang has already lost the battle. Perhaps you should just learn to live with that and take it from there.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 22, 2018, 02:02:23 AM
Thanks Ray.

You ain't see nothin' yet, though.

Just wait until I start talking about Angleton's bugbears, (blond, short, very thin-faced) NIKOLAI LEONOV, and triple-agent "Byetkov*?" (IVAN OBYEDKOV).

Oh yeah, and triple-agent Alexei Kulak ("Fedora"), and ("Dept. 13") Oleg Brykin, and Gunter Schulz (Hoover's "Tumbleweed"), and ... gasp ... Valeriy Kostikov, and the fact that Department 13 of the First Chief Directorate was probably shut down in 1959!

--  Tommy
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 22, 2018, 02:50:07 AM
Larsen, GRAVES, and yes, you helped a little bit by swallowing your pride and honestly reporting Craig Calvery's voluntary observation that his mom is visible in Betzner 3 (wearing a black blouse, a black headscarf, and standing tall, not far from the Woman In All White).  Too bad you didn't tape record your conversation with him ...

Interesting how you leave me out of the equation so often, Brian, seein' as how it was I who tentatively identified Gloria Calvery in Betzner 3 about a year before you called her son ...

LOL

--  Tommy
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 22, 2018, 04:40:18 AM
There's more to it than that, Michael.

There's also Frazier's noticeable turning towards Prayer Person (or vice versa, or both?) at some point between the end of the Wiegman clip and the beginning of the Couch-Darnell clip, and how that fact correlates quite well with Frazier's stating that he and a "Sarah" (whom he claims was standing near him) both heard a girl who "came by" the steps soon after the final shot and announced to the people there (on the lower steps) that Kennedy had been shot, and how this "Sarah" and he had turned towards each other at that point and asked each other whether or not they had both heard this girl (most likely Gloria Calvery) correctly.

--  Tommy 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on November 22, 2018, 03:21:05 PM
ALAN FORD...

Now you say that it can't be Mr Oswald because this makes no sense if he was being framed as the sixth-floor shooter.
Question for you! Why should we assume he was being framed as the sixth-floor shooter?


Because he said so. He also said that the BYP's were faked too.  That's good enough for me because Oswald never got his day alive in court with fair representation. He even mentions this at the "short and sweet" midnight press conference.  Everyone is entitled to that. Even OJ, Manson, MacDonald, McVeigh and all the rest had their day in court. Oswald did not. When the conspiracy came full circle by Ruby, it closed forever Oswald's right to a fair trial. Instead, in death, it opened the door to dithering, lies and deception to come to a preconceived conclusion.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2018, 04:04:23 PM
ALAN FORD...

Now you say that it can't be Mr Oswald because this makes no sense if he was being framed as the sixth-floor shooter.
Question for you! Why should we assume he was being framed as the sixth-floor shooter?


Because he said so.

Huh?

Question: Did you shoot the President?
Answer: No, they've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union... I'm just a patsy!


They = the police, targeting him because of his background.
Nothing to do with the conspirators framing him as the gunman.

So-----back to my question!

Why should we assume that Mr Oswald was being set up as the sixth-floor shooter?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on November 22, 2018, 04:25:58 PM
For goodness sake, Allen. Are you that desperate? The man denied being involved with everything. He said the BYP were faked. And yes, he used the word "patsy," as in he was being blamed for something, which is the definition of that word.

I'm not going to argue or quibble with you about this any more.  If you think this guy, who supposedly was just some lone nut who decided to shoot Kennedy on 11/22 because of his so-called Marxist beliefs, then fine...have at it. If he supposedly was in Mexico trying to go back to Russia, why in the world would he then make an about-face and decide to shoot Kennedy? It makes no sense.

I don't accept the official conclusion. The shooting sequence alone using the so-called POS gun he allegedly used makes it almost impossible for someone to have pulled it off.

The so-called bullet that was supposed to have caused all of the non-fatal wounds in two men and coming out near pristine raises more questions than answers.

These and other inconsistencies would have been more than enough doubt in a court of law by a team of lawyers.

Even Castro himself knew something was fishy, but not Kennedy's own government:

https://kennedysandking.com/news-items/castro-figured-out-the-jfk-case-in-five-days-speech-of-november-27th-1963

And even Oswald himself was no lone nut drifting through life and deciding to shoot Kennedy on a whim. But of course the official conclusion says otherwise:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html

But like I said, if he you want to believe in the official conclusion, then congratulations.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 22, 2018, 05:21:44 PM
For goodness sake, Allen. Are you that desperate? The man denied being involved with everything. He said the BYP were faked. And yes, he used the word "patsy," as in he was being blamed for something, which is the definition of that word.

I'm not going to argue or quibble with you about this any more.  If you think this guy, who supposedly was just some lone nut who decided to shoot Kennedy on 11/22 because of his so-called Marxist beliefs, then fine...have at it. If he supposedly was in Mexico trying to go back to Russia, why in the world would he then make an about-face and decide to shoot Kennedy? It makes no sense.

I don't accept the official conclusion. The shooting sequence alone using the so-called POS gun he allegedly used makes it almost impossible for someone to have pulled it off.

The so-called bullet that was supposed to have caused all of the non-fatal wounds in two men and coming out near pristine raises more questions than answers.

These and other inconsistencies would have been more than enough doubt in a court of law by a team of lawyers.

Even Castro himself knew something was fishy, but not Kennedy's own government:

https://kennedysandking.com/news-items/castro-figured-out-the-jfk-case-in-five-days-speech-of-november-27th-1963

And even Oswald himself was no lone nut drifting through life and deciding to shoot Kennedy on a whim. But of course the official conclusion says otherwise:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html

But like I said, if he you want to believe in the official conclusion, then congratulations.

Huh? You think I'm a LNer?!?  :'(

I believe Mr Oswald is Prayer Man, which would-----and I assumed this part was, er, not altogether unobvious-----make it rather difficult for him to be the sixth-floor shooter.

I believe Mr Oswald was framed as a conspirator through being tied to the Mannlicher Carcano, and that it did not take him long after the shooting to put 2 and 2 together.

The only reason you have offered against Prayer Man being Mr Oswald is that the only way he could have been framed was as the sixth-floor shooter. I find this illogical!

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 23, 2018, 04:32:56 PM
~Cough cough~

(https://i.imgur.com/bPjAwzU.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 23, 2018, 10:39:12 PM
Michael,

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about.

"The photo is bunk."  -- Michael Walton

WHAT photo is "bunk," Michael?

--  Tommy
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 23, 2018, 11:07:11 PM
Mr Buell Wesley Frazier, in interview with the late Mr Gary Mack, 6/19/2002:

Buell: (1:23:03) Well, after the first shot and then with the second and third, I walked down on the steps to where Billy was originally standing because, if my memory serves correctly, Billy and Mr. Shelley had gone down the street that ran right in front of the Depository there.  They had walked down there, and the lady I was standing by, we? we just stayed right there on the steps.  And then people were? somebody come running by and said they?d shot the president.

That 'somebody' being (obviously) Ms Gloria Calvery, fresh from her exchange with Mr Shelley out at the corner of the 'island'.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 24, 2018, 07:13:43 PM
Brian,

1) With whom do you believe Gloria Calvery is speaking in Couch-Darnell?

2) Who do you believe the two guys walking down the Elm Street Extension sidewalk are?

3) About how many seconds after the final shot did Marrion Baker enter the front door of the TSBD?

4) Where was Oswald at the time, and what was he doing?

5) To the best of your knowledge, what does Bart Kamp believe regarding the above questions?

(Just trying to get my head around what you two guys believe.)

Thanks,

--  Tommy
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 24, 2018, 07:55:30 PM
Brian,

Why is this "Prayer Man Was Oswald" vs. "Prayer Man Was Sarah Stanton" battle between you and Bart Kamp so important, anyway?

I mean, I mean, I mean, seriously ... Don't you BOTH believe that the "evil, evil, evil" CIA killed JFK?

(IMHO, KGB-boy Vladimir Putin loves you both.)

LOL

--  Tommy   :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 25, 2018, 03:01:48 PM
Regarding Chris Davidson's Mary Tyler Moore-like image of Prayer Person, should't it be possible to replicate it through the same process (contrast adjustment, removal of  "frames," etc, etc, etc)?

Has this been attempted, or is Davidson the only person in the world who can come close to accomplishing such alchemy?

-- Tommy
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 25, 2018, 03:57:49 PM
Regarding Chris Davidson's Mary Tyler Moore-like image of Prayer Person, should't it be possible to replicate it through the same process (contrast adjustment, removal of  "frames," etc, etc, etc)?

Has this been attempted, or is Davidson the only person in the world who can come close to accomplishing such alchemy?

-- Tommy

Hallo, Mr Graves!

This 'Davidson enhancement' nonsense was put to bed months ago, but that doesn't stop the Anyone-But-Oswald people recycling their nonsense...  ::)

The 'face' is not part of Prayer Person's head, which is in fact above it. This is the reason why the Stanton Diehards never want to show the uncropped version of the 'enhancement'-------

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

For context, here's the non-'enhanced' frame from the Weisberg scan!

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

Let's put this Wiegman frame in further context. Watch where 'Sarah's' right hand (holding the bright object) goes...

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

Maybe she's putting eye-drops in! Or applying some extra dye to her dark professional-situation wig!!  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on November 25, 2018, 05:15:12 PM
Alan, my copy and paste was because Tom Graves was too lazy to go back in this thread to find the image I was speaking of. So I copied and pasted it for him. If you don't like it, then do what we used to do back in the day of over-the-air television...turn the dial to change the channel.

Meanwhile, sounds like you're riled up since I know you think it's Oswald up there in the vestibule and you know I and others don't buy into it. Bad news, Alan - it's not him. The conspirators would not have their fall guy be standing up there moments after the shooting.  Otherwise, that'd make them the dumbest masterminds in the annals of crime.

But now that I know you're a CT-er, here's plenty of juicy reading for you that proves it wasn't LHO who killed Kennedy.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12g1i440geFDhf_vFKiHaEqyF1N-MUT2p/view

But even after you read the above, if you want to go back to believing it's Oswald up there as PM, then that's on you LOL
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 25, 2018, 05:29:12 PM

Meanwhile, sounds like you're riled up since I know you think it's Oswald up there in the vestibule and you know I and others don't buy into it. Bad news, Alan - it's not him. The conspirators would not have their fall guy be standing up there moments after the shooting.  Otherwise, that'd make them the dumbest masterminds in the annals of crime.

Another nice evasion, Mr Walton!  Thumb1:

Let's try this yet again, shall we?

Why do you assume that Mr Oswald was being set up as the sixth-floor shooter rather than as------say------a conspirator who supplied the rifle?

Could it be that the reason you keep running away from this simple question is that... you can't come up with any answer to it?  :-[
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 25, 2018, 10:33:19 PM
Alan, my copy and paste was because Tom Graves was too lazy to go back in this thread to find the image I was speaking of. So I copied and pasted it for him. If you don't like it, then do what we used to do back in the day of over-the-air television...turn the dial to change the channel.

Meanwhile, sounds like you're riled up since I know you think it's Oswald up there in the vestibule and you know I and others don't buy into it. Bad news, Alan - it's not him. The conspirators would not have their fall guy be standing up there moments after the shooting.  Otherwise, that'd make them the dumbest masterminds in the annals of crime.

But now that I know you're a CT-er, here's plenty of juicy reading for you that proves it wasn't LHO who killed Kennedy

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12g1i440geFDhf_vFKiHaEqyF1N-MUT2p/view

But even after you read the above, if you want to go back to believing it's Oswald up there as PM, then that's on you LOL
I suppose that what needs to be considered, and reconsidered, is that for the LeeHarveyOswald as PrayerManImage Theory to be factual, it requires the belief that LHO, arguably the most famous LoneGunmanAssassin in history, was actually filmed standing on the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building Elm St Mid-Level First Floor Main Entrance Landing at the top of the stairs, during the 12:30pm CST time frame of the Assassination of USP JohnKennedySr and CriticalWounding of TxG JohnConnallyJr.
Additionally, for the LHO as PMI Theory to be factual, it needs to be considered, and reconsidered, that he would have been among multiple eyewitnesses and co-workers at the TSBD Bldg, including his mentor, BuellWesleyFrazier, with whom he occasionally rode to and from work with to and from Irving, and yet not anyone of said eyewitnesses has ever testified to his presence on the Landing/Stairs during the shooting and/or filming at and/or about 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 25, 2018, 11:32:08 PM
My question was:

Has anybody been able to independently arrive at/produce the same "Mary Tyler Moore-like" image that Davidson came up with by doing the same things that Davidson claimed to have done to "enhance the photo"?

Or is it a one-time "Cold Fusion" kinda thing, i.e. incapable of being recreated independently in a kinda "scientific" ... "experiment"?

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 26, 2018, 08:15:14 PM
Brian,

1)  Don't you find it amazing that the the man Calvery is speaking with in Couch-Darnell looks so much like Lovelady?

2)  Whose theory has more witnesses lying at least once about their actions and/or observations during, say, the beginning of Wiegman (sic) to, say, the spotting of Baker's helmet on the fifth floor (or, even better, when Lovelady was filmed while smoking a cigarette on the front steps several minutes later), ... yours or Kamp's?

For example, did Vicki Adam's prevaricate?  Shelley? Lovelady?  Truly?  Reid?   Please help me sort out the bad guys from the good guys, if you will.

Corollary question: Did the FBI and the DPD and the Secret Service lie about .. gasp ... absolutely everything that happened during that period of time, or must we / can we "cherry-pick" to get to The Truth?

-- Tommy :)

PS -- What does it really matter whether you or Kamp is right about Prayer Woman / Prayer Man, as long as most assassination students and "researchers" continue to fervently believe  that  the  "evil, evil, evil" Military Industrial Intelligence Community Complex killed JFK?

LOL
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 26, 2018, 10:04:53 PM
Brian,

Why is this "Prayer Man Was Oswald" vs. "Prayer Man Was Sarah Stanton" battle between you and Bart Kamp so important, anyway?

I mean, I mean, I mean, seriously ... Don't you BOTH believe that the "evil, evil, evil" CIA killed JFK?

(IMHO, KGB-boy Vladimir Putin loves you both.)

LOL

--  Tommy   :)

Quote
LarryTrotter replied:
With all due respect Mr Graves, reliable, provable, indicative evidence has been provided that justifies a conclusion that PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TSBD Bldg, Ms SarahDeanStanton. However, I will not research previously provided evidentiary information in order to provide direct links, but it should be fairly easily located.
That said, the question should be asked of those that claim PrayerPersonImage
represents LeeHarveyOswald. Or, for that matter, any male with or without a camera.
There are multiple possibilities for eyewitness testimony placing LHO on the landing at the time, but yet there is no such eyewitness testimony.
And, it is my conclusion that the gender-neutral appearing PPI represents a person less than 5.5' tall, but otherwise somewhat larger than normal for an adult.
As stated, I base my PPI identity conclusion on reliable, provable, and indicative evidentiary information, but place no reliance on the DavidsonImageEnhancement.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on November 26, 2018, 11:38:18 PM
Another nice evasion, Mr Walton!  Thumb1:

Let's try this yet again, shall we?

Why do you assume that Mr Oswald was being set up as the sixth-floor shooter rather than as------say------a conspirator who supplied the rifle?

Could it be that the reason you keep running away from this simple question is that... you can't come up with any answer to it?  :-[

My goodness, Alan.  Did you even bother to read the 173 pages in that link I posted? It's clear he was set up to take the fall. I don't know how many more ways to spin it for you.

So yes, there's too much evidence based on the book link and Accessories After the Fact that shows he was set up to take the fall.  But it does NOT mean he was ALSO up there in the vestibule as Kennedy's head was blown apart.

They would NOT have just let their fall guy roam around, risking being seen during the shooting.  And Frazier's testimony (also in the link) says he was talking to a female, or turned to one rather.

If you then reply to this with more blather, than I don't know what else to say to convince you otherwise.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on November 26, 2018, 11:43:25 PM
My question was:

Has anybody been able to independently arrive at/produce the same "Mary Tyler Moore-like" image that Davidson came up with by doing the same things that Davidson claimed to have done to "enhance the photo"?

Or is it a one-time "Cold Fusion" kinda thing, i.e. incapable of being recreated independently in a kinda "scientific" ... "experiment"?

All Davidson did was take a frame from the film, open it in Photoshop, and blew it up to an extreme degree.  He might have fiddled around with some filters and other gizmos in Photoshop.  I use that software every day at work and it's great, but even I would never - EVER - try to blow up a grainy piece of film and fiddle with it and try to make it look like a blobby woman.
Title: Re: Latest Prayer Man Theory.Claims It Is Dougherty
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2018, 03:41:37 PM
The Anybody-But-Oswald crowd are getting desperate!  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2018, 03:58:03 PM
My goodness, Alan.  Did you even bother to read the 173 pages in that link I posted? It's clear he was set up to take the fall. I don't know how many more ways to spin it for you.

So yes, there's too much evidence based on the book link and Accessories After the Fact that shows he was set up to take the fall.  But it does NOT mean he was ALSO up there in the vestibule as Kennedy's head was blown apart.

They would NOT have just let their fall guy roam around, risking being seen during the shooting.  And Frazier's testimony (also in the link) says he was talking to a female, or turned to one rather.

If you then reply to this with more blather, than I don't know what else to say to convince you otherwise.

Oh Mr Walton, are you trying to be obtuse?  ::)

We know Mr Oswald was set up as the fall guy. You still haven't explained why he can't have been set up as something other than the actual trigger-puller.

If the conspirators (as opposed to the investigators) wanted people to think Mr Oswald was the sixth-floor lone gunman, don't you think they could have come up with a rather better witness than Howard Brennan? And don't you think they would have avoided showing what Arnold Rowland and Carolyn Walther saw? And do you think they would have left Mr Oswald to roam around on the first or second floor where he could have been seen by any fellow employee who had decided not to view the motorcade?

Just how inept do you think these conspirators were?

And don't you even understand why Mr Oswald was chosen as the fall guy? Not because he was a lone nut, which would have defeated the purpose. But because of his Leftist connections. Have him pinned as the guy who supplied the rifle----or one of the rifles----and you done gone got yo'self a Communist Conspiracy 'gainst America!

The lone nut theory was, in short, the furthest thing from the conspirators' twisted minds. It was invented by others after the assassination-----who, thanks to the lack of any attempt on the conspirators' part to make it seem that Mr Oswald had been at that window at that time with that rifle-----had to work very hard indeed to make their ridiculous theory stick!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 27, 2018, 04:59:20 PM
Alan Ford wrote:

"Why (was) Mr Oswald ... chosen as the fall guy? Not because he was a lone nut, which would have defeated the purpose. But because of his Leftist connections. Have him pinned as the guy who supplied the rifle----or one of the rifles----and you done gone got yo'self a Communist Conspiracy 'gainst America!

The lone nut theory was, in short, the furthest thing from the conspirators' twisted minds. It was invented by others after the assassination-----who, thanks to the lack of any attempt on the conspirators' part to make it seem that Mr Oswald had been at that window at that time with that rifle-----had to work very hard indeed to make their ridiculous theory stick!"

...

My response:

In my humble opinion, the "Lone Nut" theory was officially promoted not to hide alleged CIA complicity in the assassination, but because KGB triple-agents Aleksei Kulak (FEDORA) and Ivan Obyedkov (look him up) had, with either witting or unwitting help from Oleg Brykin (look him up) and Guenter Schulz (TUMBLEWEED), planted (John Newman's brilliantly correct on one level but woefully wrong on another) "WW III Virus" in Oswald's file.

Uhh, why would they do that, you ask?

(Well, in order to instill fear of a nuclear holocaust and thereby guarantee a Kremlin-absolving "investigation," I guess.)

--  Tommy   :)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 27, 2018, 05:10:16 PM
Brian,

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the Prayer Man people ever claimed that the steps per se comprised the "vestibule" in question, but that it was the lobby area inside the front door.

Yeah, I'm probably wrong.

LOL

--  Tommy   :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 27, 2018, 06:22:20 PM
Brian,

I wouldn't say that your Shelley "confronts" Running Woman on Elm Street Extension any more that I "confront" a complete stranger while both of us are walking across a street from opposite directions and the other guy's actually running.


And regarding Lovelady, I don't know -- maybe there were two of them there that day.

Shouldn't be any problem for you, seein' as how you believe there were fifteen or sixteen Oswalds, right?

LOL


--  Tommy   :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 27, 2018, 07:32:07 PM
Brian,

There's no guarantee that both Lovelady's were on the steps at the same time.

(LOL)

Hey, at least I've gotten you to admit that Oswald was inside the building while the motorcade was passing by, you know, so he could shoot JFK for the KGB and/or the DGI?

-- Tommy   :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 27, 2018, 07:36:43 PM

A vestibule /ˈvɛstɪbjuːl/ is an anteroom (antechamber) or small foyer leading into a larger space, such as a lobby, entrance hall, passage, etc., for the purpose of waiting, withholding the larger space view, reducing heat loss, providing space for outwear, etc. The term applies to structures in both modern and historical architecture since ancient times. In modern architecture, vestibule typically refers to a small room next to the outer door and connecting it with the interior of the building.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 27, 2018, 08:02:52 PM
"A vestibule /ˈvɛstɪbjuːl/ is an anteroom (antechamber) or small foyer leading into a larger space, such as a lobby, entrance hall, passage, etc., for the purpose of waiting, withholding the larger space view, reducing heat loss, providing space for outwear, etc. The term applies to structures in both modern and historical architecture since ancient times. In modern architecture, vestibule typically refers to a small room next to the outer door and connecting it with the interior of the building."

That's wonderful, Mr. Mitcham, but we really don't know if Harry Holmes, himself, knew the correct meaning of the word now do we.

Regardless:

CONFLICTING TESTIMONY BY POSTAL INSPECTOR HARRY HOLMES:

Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman (B) stop him (O) when he (O) was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?

Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.

Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?

Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there (in the 2nd-floor lunchroom, right???) myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.

Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?

Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.

....................................................................

In my humble opinion, there is nothing near the front door on the TSBD's first floor that comes close to being what Belin and Holmes are describing in the first part of Holmes' testimony, above. 

E.g., "coming down the stairs," "approaching the door to the vestibule," "I have never been there myself," "two sets of doors," "front part".

That's all 2nd-floor lunchroom stuff as far as I'm concerned.

So, why the heck did Holmes say, "First floor. The front entrance to the first floor." ???

--  Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 27, 2018, 08:33:32 PM
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY BY POSTAL INSPECTOR HARRY HOLMES:

Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman (B) stop him (O) when he (O) was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?

Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.

Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?

Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there (in the 2nd-floor lunchroom, right???) myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.

Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?

Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.

....................................................................

In my humble opinion, there is nothing near the front door on the TSBD's first floor that comes close to being what Belin and Holmes are describing in the first part of Holmes' testimony, above. 

E.g., "when he (Oswald) was coming down the stairs," "approaching the door to the vestibule," "I have never been there myself," "two sets of doors," "front part".

That's all 2nd-floor lunchroom stuff as far as I'm concerned.

So, why the heck did Holmes say, "First floor. The front entrance to the first floor." ???

--  Tommy  :)

I do believe the written testimony of PostalInspector HarryHolmes includes his self description as being a 'Suspicioner', and also includes the comment that, paraphrasing, "it is not what he said, it is what I think he said", when reporting the last, and jail transfer delaying, LHO Testimony.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2018, 08:41:47 PM
A vestibule /ˈvɛstɪbjuːl/ is an anteroom (antechamber) or small foyer leading into a larger space, such as a lobby, entrance hall, passage, etc., for the purpose of waiting, withholding the larger space view, reducing heat loss, providing space for outwear, etc. The term applies to structures in both modern and historical architecture since ancient times. In modern architecture, vestibule typically refers to a small room next to the outer door and connecting it with the interior of the building.

Hallo Mr Mitcham!

Mr Roy Sansom Truly's pointed misuse of the word 'vestibule' in his Warren Commission testimony is quite the red flag!

--------------We know from Harry D. Holmes that Mr Oswald, in custody, had used the word correctly to mean front lobby of building.

And what was the context of Mr Oswald's correct use of the word?

--------------Why, an encounter involving Mr Truly himself right after the assassination  ???




Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 27, 2018, 08:50:05 PM




CONFLICTING TESTIMONY BY POSTAL INSPECTOR HARRY HOLMES:

Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman (B) stop him (O) when he (O) was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?

Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.


So, why the heck did Holmes say, "First floor. The front entrance to the first floor." ???

--  Tommy  :)

Trouble is (B) didn't stop (O) as he was coming down  the stairs. And there were stairs just inside the vestibule on the first floor.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 27, 2018, 08:52:33 PM
Hallo Mr Mitcham!

Mr Roy Sansom Truly's pointed misuse of the word 'vestibule' in his Warren Commission testimony is quite the red flag!

--------------We know from Harry D. Holmes that Mr Oswald, in custody, had used the word correctly to mean front lobby of building.

And what was the context of Mr Oswald's correct use of the word?

--------------Why, an encounter involving Mr Truly himself right after the assassination  ???

Hello Mr Ford.

Exactly my thoughts.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2018, 08:55:02 PM
The idea that the only possible alternative to the LN cry of 'Oswald was the shooter!' is a CT cry of 'Oswald was set up as the shooter!' is preposterous.

A-----Mr Oswald could have been the shooter yet still part of a conspiracy
B-----Mr Oswald could have been one of several shooters
C-----Mr Oswald could have been a pseudo-shooter tricked into taking part in what he thought was a fake assassination attempt
D-----Mr Oswald could have been a conspirator who didn't do any actual shooting
E-----Mr Oswald could have been set up as a conspirator who didn't do any actual shooting

Prayer Man as Oswald is consistent with Theories D and E.

Theories D and E make no claim whatsoever as to who was behind the assassination!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2018, 08:56:18 PM
Hello Mr Ford.

Exactly my thoughts.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2018, 09:02:07 PM
Trouble is (B) didn't stop (O) as he was coming down  the stairs. And there were stairs just inside the vestibule on the first floor.

And a small storage room right at the bottom of those stairs...

(https://i.imgur.com/PnVo8a3.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2018, 09:35:05 PM
Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?

Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there (i.e. in the Depository building, A.F.) myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.

Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?

Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.


Could hardly be clearer:
------------There are two sets of doors at the Depository vestibule/front lobby: to exit the shipping floor you pass the counter then go through one set of double doors; to exit the vestibule and go out on to the front steps you go through another set of double doors.

Don't believe me? Read Marrion L. Baker's testimony!

Even Vincent Bugliosi knew what a vestibule is. From Four Days in November:

Truly follows him up the front steps, through the glass front doors, and into the vestibule, where he asks people in the lobby where the stairs are.

The Prayer Man theory adds: Truly finds Baker asking 'Do you work here?' of a young employee by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. 'I can help you, officer,' Truly interjects, 'I'm the building manager.' They leave Oswald standing there. That evening, the FBI will ask Truly about Oswald's claim about this encounter. 'We saw no one there in the front lobby,' Truly will assure them after some gentle coaching. This will be written up in the FBI report as 'They saw no one there'. A half-century later, the oddness of this statement will be noticed by researchers.

 Walk:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on November 27, 2018, 09:52:50 PM


Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there (i.e. in the Depository building, A.F.) myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.


There weren't two sets of double doors  on the second floor. Only two single doors.(or for the pedants on the forum, three, if you count the door into the front offices.)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 27, 2018, 11:33:40 PM
First floor. The front entrance to the first floor. (Harry D. Holmes)

Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed the building. (James Bookhout & James Hosty, first FBI interrogation report)

No mention from Bookhout & Hosty of where exactly on the first floor Mr Oswald was claiming to have been. Go figure!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on November 27, 2018, 11:50:52 PM
Oh Mr Walton, are you trying to be obtuse?  ::)

We know Mr Oswald was set up as the fall guy. You still haven't explained why he can't have been set up as something other than the actual trigger-puller.

If the conspirators (as opposed to the investigators) wanted people to think Mr Oswald was the sixth-floor lone gunman, don't you think they could have come up with a rather better witness than Howard Brennan? And don't you think they would have avoided showing what Arnold Rowland and Carolyn Walther saw? And do you think they would have left Mr Oswald to roam around on the first or second floor where he could have been seen by any fellow employee who had decided not to view the motorcade?

Just how inept do you think these conspirators were?

And don't you even understand why Mr Oswald was chosen as the fall guy? Not because he was a lone nut, which would have defeated the purpose. But because of his Leftist connections. Have him pinned as the guy who supplied the rifle----or one of the rifles----and you done gone got yo'self a Communist Conspiracy 'gainst America!

The lone nut theory was, in short, the furthest thing from the conspirators' twisted minds. It was invented by others after the assassination-----who, thanks to the lack of any attempt on the conspirators' part to make it seem that Mr Oswald had been at that window at that time with that rifle-----had to work very hard indeed to make their ridiculous theory stick!

OK, Alan, OK. Whatever. Like Josephs, Davidson and many, many others (and old Ray too) it sounds like you think everything and everyone (and the kitchen sink too) is a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 28, 2018, 12:02:23 AM
OK, Alan, OK. Whatever. Like Josephs, Davidson and many, many others (and old Ray too) it sounds like you think everything and everyone (and the kitchen sink too) is a conspiracy.

That the best you can do, Mr Walton? Oh well (~shrug~)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 28, 2018, 12:03:51 AM
First floor. The front entrance to the first floor. (Harry D. Holmes)

Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed the building. (James Bookhout & James Hosty, first FBI interrogation report)

No mention from Bookhout & Hosty of where exactly on the first floor Mr Oswald was claiming to have been. Go figure!

And---------while we're at it-----------no mention either from Bookhout & Hosty of an encounter with a cop in the second-floor lunchroom. Go figure #2!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 28, 2018, 03:39:52 AM
Excellent point, Larry.

-- Tommy   :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 28, 2018, 07:34:00 PM
Excellent point, Larry.

-- Tommy   :)

BS:

12:29:
Mr Oswald-----at this point a nobody------steps out front for a minute or less, at a time when everyone is focused on the motorcade and (then) on the mayhem. No big deal that nobody notices his presence.

Several minutes later:
Mr Oswald-------at this point still a nobody------exits the building, passing lots of people. No big deal that nobody notices him.

Why is it that the anti-Prayer Man people can accept #2 above with no difficulty yet consider #1 an impossibility? He wasn't yet famous, folks! He was as non-famous at 12:30 as at 12:35!

Furthermore!

Most people who believe Mr Oswald is Prayer Man believe Mr Frazier did see him there but was intimidated into silence on this by Captain Fritz. A riddled-with-guilt Mr Frazier has been trying to compensate ever since by going on about the length of the paper bag.

Most Prayer Man advocates also believe that Mr Oswald was seen in the vestibule---i.e. front lobby  Thumb1: --- just after the assassination by Mr Truly and Officer Baker. But those two gentlemen lied at the behest of the authorities. (Shock! Horror! There was a cover-up  ??? )

Thankfully, however, Mr Darnell's film camera did see Mr Oswald on the steps. All other serious candidates have been ruled out. The fact that this fact drives some people bananas is neither Mr Darnell's fault nor Mr Oswald's!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 28, 2018, 08:49:59 PM
Alan,

Problem is, Frazier and Prayer Person turned even more towards each other (as if to speak with each other without actually moving closer) at some point between the end of the Wiegman clip and the beginning of Couch-Darnell, as is obvious to anyone who closely examines their respective head orientations in those two photographic documents, so it defies reason that Frazier wouldn't  have recognized (and later remembered) colleague and passenger Oswald's being there ... if Prayer Person really was Oswald, that is.

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on November 28, 2018, 10:59:19 PM
As we have now surpassed 55yrs past the Murder of JohnKennedySr by Assassination, I have to wonder, as I wander, why it is that some folks claim the LeeHarveyOswald as PrayerPersonImage Theory to be factual, although there has never been any eyewitness testimony indicating his presence on the landing, among several landing occupants/co-workers that should have seen him at and/or near the time of the shooting.
Excellent point, Larry.

-- Tommy   :)
BS:

12:29:
Mr Oswald-----at this point a nobody------steps out front for a minute or less, at a time when everyone is focused on the motorcade and (then) on the mayhem. No big deal that nobody notices his presence.

Several minutes later:
Mr Oswald-------at this point still a nobody------exits the building, passing lots of people. No big deal that nobody notices him.

Why is it that the anti-Prayer Man people can accept #2 above with no difficulty yet consider #1 an impossibility? He wasn't yet famous, folks! He was as non-famous at 12:30 as at 12:35!

Furthermore!

Most people who believe Mr Oswald is Prayer Man believe Mr Frazier did see him there but was intimidated into silence on this by Captain Fritz. A riddled-with-guilt Mr Frazier has been trying to compensate ever since by going on about the length of the paper bag.

Most Prayer Man advocates also believe that Mr Oswald was seen in the vestibule---i.e. front lobby  Thumb1: --- just after the assassination by Mr Truly and Officer Baker. But those two gentlemen lied at the behest of the authorities. (Shock! Horror! There was a cover-up  ??? )

Thankfully, however, Mr Darnell's film camera did see Mr Oswald on the steps. All other serious candidates have been ruled out. The fact that this fact drives some people bananas is neither Mr Darnell's fault nor Mr Oswald's!
Alan,

Problem is, Frazier and Prayer Person turned even more towards each other (as if to speak with each other without actually moving closer) at some point between the end of the Wiegman clip and the beginning of Couch-Darnell, as is obvious to anyone who closely examines their respective head orientations in those two photographic documents, so it defies reason that Frazier wouldn't  have recognized (and later remembered) colleague and passenger Oswald's being there ... if Prayer Person really was Oswald, that is.

-- Tommy  :)
If anything about the event in DealeyPlaza, DallasTexas, at/about 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63 that I am convinced of, it is that the person represented by PrayerPersonImage as seen on film standing on the basically west side of the approximately 11' wide landing at the top of the stairs to the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building Elm St mid-level 1st floor entrance is not LeeHarveyOswald!

12:29pm CST, Mr Oswald, by reliable indication, was in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

Several minutes later, Mr Oswald would have been among over 100 onlookers around the TSBD Bldg.

Maybe Mr Oswald was not yet famous, but he was known by many TSBD Bldg employees.

Most people, actually all, who believe the LeeOswald as PrayerManImage theory, are ignoring actual indications otherwise.

Most PrayerManImage advocates, actually all, who believe Mr Oswald was seen on the 1st floor instead of the 2nd floor by OfficerBaker and SuperintendentTruly, ignore actual evidence in order to promote the LHO as PMI Theory.

Actually, Mr Darnell's film camera scanned the entrance portal and reproduced PersonImages that are not likely correctly identified without corroborating evidence relative to their location during said filming.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on November 29, 2018, 12:10:39 AM
Alan,

Problem is, Frazier and Prayer Person turned even more towards each other (as if to speak with each other without actually moving closer) at some point between the end of the Wiegman clip and the beginning of Couch-Darnell, as is obvious to anyone who closely examines their respective head orientations in those two photographic documents, so it defies reason that Frazier wouldn't  have recognized (and later remembered) colleague and passenger Oswald's being there ... if Prayer Person really was Oswald, that is.

-- Tommy  :)

Gee, if only I'd thought of that. Oh look, I did---------in my last post!:

"Most people who believe Mr Oswald is Prayer Man believe Mr Frazier did see him there but was intimidated into silence on this by Captain Fritz."

The question you need to answer, Mr Graves, is: why did Mr Frazier spend the last 5 years telling us he had no clue as to the identity of Prayer Person------------a person with whom you say he clearly had an interaction. Now that defies reason, unless the identity of Prayer Person is too explosive for him to admit to in public  :-[

It took several decades before Mr Frazier felt ready to mention his sighting of Mr Oswald several minutes after the assassination.

I believe he has an even bigger revelation to make. I hope he finds the courage to make it before it's too late.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2018, 01:04:19 AM
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. ARCE. Three
Mr. BALL. Did you look back at the building?
Mr. ARCE. No, I didn't think they came from there. I just looked directly to the railroad tracks and all the people started running up there and I just ran along with them.
Mr. BALL. Did you go up to the railroad tracks?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.


The man whom 'Billy Lovelady' walks past in the Couch film is not Bill Shelley but Danny Arce!

(https://i.imgur.com/Cvz9YKF.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 01, 2018, 01:13:05 AM
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. ARCE. Three
Mr. BALL. Did you look back at the building?
Mr. ARCE. No, I didn't think they came from there. I just looked directly to the railroad tracks and all the people started running up there and I just ran along with them.
Mr. BALL. Did you go up to the railroad tracks?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.


The man whom 'Billy Lovelady' walks past in the Couch film is not Bill Shelley but Danny Arce!

(https://i.imgur.com/Cvz9YKF.gif)

Alan,

That makes sense.

So, I wonder where Shelley was?

Stashing a rifle on the sixth floor?

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on December 01, 2018, 12:52:03 PM
There is no interaction whatsoever between Mr Danny Arce and the running woman!

(https://i.imgur.com/Cvz9YKF.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 02, 2018, 06:29:04 AM
I fail to comprehend any valid reasoning for concluding that DannyArce is the PersonImage seen on film walking west/southwest on the Old Elm St extension parking area access road. The reliable evidentiary information indicates that WilliamShelleyImage is walking with BillyLoveladyImage and going west/southwest on the Old Elm St extension.  ::)


Larry,

How about the fact that Danny Arce testified that he walked down Elm Street Extension to the parking lot / railway yard right after the final shot, and that he was wearing a dark jacket and had dark hair, etc?

Worthless testimony?

"He's a conspirator"?

?

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on December 02, 2018, 12:23:21 PM

Larry,

How about the fact that Danny Arce testified that he walked down Elm Street Extension to the parking lot / railway yard right after the final shot, and that he was wearing a dark jacket and had dark hair, etc?

Worthless testimony?

"He's a conspirator"?

?

-- Tommy  :)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on December 03, 2018, 07:22:08 AM
I fail to comprehend any valid reasoning for concluding that DannyArce is the PersonImage seen on film walking west/southwest on the Old Elm St extension parking area access road. The reliable evidentiary information indicates that WilliamShelleyImage is walking with BillyLoveladyImage and going west/southwest on the Old Elm St extension.  ::)

Larry,

How about the fact that Danny Arce testified that he walked down Elm Street Extension to the parking lot / railway yard right after the final shot, and that he was wearing a dark jacket and had dark hair, etc?

Worthless testimony?

"He's a conspirator"?

?

-- Tommy  :)
Tommy:
Actually I was not aware of the specific DannyArce testimony as stated in your reference relative to his walking down the Elm St Extension. Does his statement/testimony indicate that he was with/near BillyLovelady during said walk?
In any event, I thought the as seen DannyArceImage was wearing a long coat, instead of a jacket. And, as well, if not WilliamShelleyImage near BillyLoveladyImage on the Old Elm St extension, is there any reliable indicative information relative to where MrShelley may have been?
???
In any event, I believe DannyArce said:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arce.htm
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Anthony Clayden on December 11, 2018, 08:27:12 PM
Brian,

With both the ease of which images can be manipulated and the possibility that the face is just a artefact of data manipulation on a poor image, many will remain scepitical of any definite naming of "prayer person". If you want to end this then may I suggest....

Either 1 arrange for a better clearer copy of the films/images OR

Arrange for Davidson's method and frame chosen to be published and replicated by others, furthermore follow the same process on other frames and see if a similiar result is obtained.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on December 13, 2018, 10:45:22 PM
That's not really necessary, Brian.

All any truly open-minded "researcher" has to do is go to the JFK Assassination Debate - Education Forum and look up the work I did on Thierry "Fake News" Speth's, Don Roberdeau's, and Robin Unger's misidentified Gloria Calvery (sic), Karan Hicks, and Carol Reed (in reality Native-American Stella Mae Jacob, Gloria Holt, and Sharron Simmons -- all three of which were unfortunately mis-placed on the other side of Elm Street in their statements to the FBI), and then see how Sandy and I went about identifying tall and largish Gloria Calvery in Zapruder, Betzner 3, and Darnell.

Then, if they'll watch Wesley Buell Frazier's 2013 Sixth Floor Museum interview (starting at around 33:57), bingo, they have everything they need to know about Prayer Man's actually being a Prayer Woman -- Sarah Stanton.


-- Tommy  :)
Tommy,

As I recall, said research was of assistance for my conclusions of identity as well, and although some time back, it is still seemingly ignored with the same identity mistakes continuing to be referenced.

As an added note, it appears to me that any open-minded "researcher" would have already concluded that PrayerPersonImage represents SarahStanton. ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on December 15, 2018, 09:27:08 PM
Mark,

I taught English in the Czech Republic for seven years in the 1990s, and I must say that your last name reminds me of the fact that the Czech word for "crazy, mad, wild, crackpot, zany, loco" is "bl?zniv?".

https://en.bab.la/dictionary/czech-english/bl%C3%A1zen

LOL

-- Tommy  :)

PS. I said "blow up," not "go up".

perhaps..... but Tom Scully sure had a time with you when he was trying to be a moderator at EF.  i admit my madness.... do you?  oh, bytheway..... i've heard that 'oblazny' means 'blessed', but i might have to 'czech' my sources.  hey, remember the famous ralph cinque post about the 'czech man'...... ask john mcadams about that.  oswald shot kennedy and tippit.  he almost shot walker.  he almost killed his wife on more than one occasion.  to glorify this sick marxist spombleprofglidnoctobuns is deplorable.  end transmission+
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Oscar Navarro on December 15, 2018, 10:13:25 PM
perhaps..... but Tom Scully sure had a time with you when he was trying to be a moderator at EF.  i admit my madness.... do you?  oh, bytheway..... i've heard that 'oblazny' means 'blessed', but i might have to 'czech' my sources.  hey, remember the famous ralph cinque post about the 'czech man'...... ask john mcadams about that.  oswald shot kennedy and tippit.  he almost shot walker.  he almost killed his wife on more than one occasion.  to glorify this sick marxist xxxx is deplorable.  end transmission+

Add Connally and himself back when the little MF was in the USMC. He was also a terror with a knife. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 15, 2018, 10:34:49 PM
perhaps..... but Tom Scully sure had a time with you when he was trying to be a moderator at EF.  i admit my madness.... do you?  oh, bytheway..... i've heard that 'oblazny' means 'blessed', but i might have to 'czech' my sources.  hey, remember the famous ralph cinque post about the 'czech man'...... ask john mcadams about that.  oswald shot kennedy and tippit.  he almost shot walker.  he almost killed his wife on more than one occasion.  to glorify this sick marxist xxxx is deplorable.  end transmission+

Mark,

Blessedly ignorant?

Regardless, back in the day when I, too, thought that the evil, evil, evil CIA had killed JFK (After all, I'd seen ... gasp ..."JFK" ... and had read or was in the process of reading Rush to Judgement, Crossfire, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Plausible Denial, Oswald and the CIA, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, and, oh yeah, On the Trail of the Assassins), I felt some affinity for Tom Scully. 

At the very beginning, that is.  When I joined the EF in 2005.

But soon his interminable, eight-degrees-of-separation, "scrambled eggs," full-page posts wore off on me.  (I'm  sorry. Please forgive me.)

Yet, believe it or not, inspite of the above I continued to believe that the evil, evil, evil CIA had killed JFK, okay?  And I continued to do so until 2014, when those nice Russians invaded my grandmother's homeland, and I started thinking to myself, "Hmm. Maybe the CIA isn't the only evil, evil, evil organization in the world, after all," and I started looking around and stumbled upon two books that have really opened  my eyes, boy.

"Spy Wars" by Tennent H. Bagley, and "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI  and CIA" by Mark Riebling.

Point being:  My being turned off to Tom Scully's Beautiful Mind-like extrapolations and tenuous associations had absolutely nothing to do with my becoming the loathsome Fascist that I am today.

(sarcasm)

-- Tommy  :)

PS. At least that's what The Agency told me to say here ...

PPS None of which has any bearing on my burning desire to  prove that in the Darnell clip, that is indeed Gloria Calvery at the base of the TSBD steps, speaking with a nearly bald-headed man (Billy Lovelady's long-lost twin?) who appears to standing on one of the first two steps.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 16, 2018, 12:18:34 AM
[...]

No (sic), sure...The plaid stripe is a gimme and equal in value to the short-length sweater...

Some people were saying we had no proof...There is the proof...
[/quote]
.......

Brian,

Not sure I understand. 

Are you saying that, yes, you can make out that horizontal stripe in Calvery's skirt in Darnell? 

-- Tommy  :)

PS. Evidently, some "researchers" refuse to see it, even after enlarging a pertinent frame.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 18, 2018, 04:35:57 AM
In all seriousness, and for my clarification, if GloriaCalveryImage is "speaking with a nearly bald-headed man (Billy Lovelady's long-lost twin?) who appears to (be) standing on one of the first two steps" in the DarnellFilm clip, if indeed BillyLoveladyImage, who is the PersonImage with BillShelleyImage walking west on the Old Elm St extension?

Larry,

I threw in the "nearly bald-headed man on the first or second step," and the joking "Billy Lovelady's long-lost twin?" bits as verbal aides to help "researchers" who might still be confused locate Gloria Calvery in the Darnell Clip.
.....

A Question For Larry Trotter:

If that's Lovelady walking/running down Elm Street Extension, then who is the Lovelady "double" with whom Calvery is speaking in Darnell?

A non-TSBD person from the street who just happens to look like Lovelady?

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 18, 2018, 08:03:19 AM
As I recall, at one time I assumed that the Image represented Billy Lovelady, possibly because his Image had been seen on the west side steps a short time earlier. But, if he is on the Old Elm St extension, then the Image is that of someone else. And, I have previously concluded the possibility that the Image shows the rear-view from the shoulders and above of the head scarf wearing KarenWestbrookImage.

Larry,

If that's not the face of a nearly bald-headed man (who's rising up from a crouching-forward stance), but the backside of a woman's head that's covered in a light-colored headscarf (and which "woman" could be imagined to be walking up the steps), then why is Calvery just standing there instead of going up the steps with her all-in-white colleague?

Also, how are we to explain the appearance of two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and Lovelady-like side-hair on your lady's headscarf in the few relatively un-fuzzy (but blown up) frames of that clip?

-- Tommy  :)

Edit:

To (just barely) make out the eyes, nose, mouth and hair I'm talking about, see Sandy Larsen's PhotoBucket blown-up detail of part of a Darnell frame in his March 4, 2017 post on page 4 (scroll down to the very bottom) of the EF's thread "Was 'Full Figured" Gloria Calvery 'Running Woman'?"

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on December 18, 2018, 07:03:54 PM
Larry,

If that's not the face of a nearly bald-headed man (who's rising up from a crouching-forward stance), but the backside of a woman's head that's covered in a light-colored headscarf (and which "woman" could be imagined to be walking up the steps), then why is Calvery just standing there instead of going up the steps with her all-in-white colleague?

Also, how are we to explain the appearance of two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and Lovelady-like side-hair on your lady's headscarf in the few relatively un-fuzzy (but blown up) frames of that clip?

-- Tommy  :)

Edit:

To (just barely) make out the eyes, nose, mouth and hair I'm talking about, see Sandy Larsen's PhotoBucket blown-up detail of part of a Darnell frame in his March 4, 2017 post on page 4 (scroll down to the very bottom) of the EF's thread "Was 'Full Figured" Gloria Calvery 'Running Woman'?"
I am unable to locate the post specified, but I did view a film/photo posted by TommyGraves, aka You, that is as clear as I have seen, and it is a PhotoBucketImage. However, I am unable to justify discarding my image identity conclusion, and continue to believe what is shown is a rear view of the shoulders and above of a head scarf wearing FemaleImage. And, it continues to be my conclusion that the PersonImage represents KarenWestbrook, based on corroborating indicative information.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 18, 2018, 10:24:00 PM
Yeah, 'cause Lovelady is the only person with a bald spot.

 ::)

John,

If the guy standing on the steps in front of Calvery in Darnell had a bald spot, would you expect to see it in Darnell?

 ???

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 18, 2018, 10:26:30 PM
Don't know.  Could you point out who it is you're talking about?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 18, 2018, 11:28:46 PM
Don't know.  Could you point out who it is you're talking about?

John,

Haven't you been following this thread recently?

.......

Here's a post I made on this thread yesterday:

Larry,

If that's not the face of a nearly bald-headed man (who's rising up from a crouching-forward stance), but the backside of a woman's head that's covered in a light-colored headscarf (and which "woman" could be imagined to be walking up the steps), then why is Calvery just standing there instead of going up the steps with her all-in-white colleague?

Also, how are we to explain the appearance of two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and Lovelady-like side-hair on your lady's headscarf in the few relatively un-fuzzy (but blown up) frames of that clip?

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 19, 2018, 10:09:05 PM
To see the Lovelady-like guy I'm talking about, and to (just barely) make out his eyes, nose, mouth and hair, see Sandy Larsen's PhotoBucket March 4, 2017 post on the JFK Assassination Debate-Education Forum's thread "Was 'Full Figured" Gloria Calvery 'Running Woman'?" [To find it, ya gotta scroll all the way down to the bottom of that thread!

Why don't you just post the photo here?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 19, 2018, 10:17:58 PM
Is this the photo you're talking about?

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/larsen-darnell.jpg)

Kindly identify who you think Lovelady is, and why.

Also identify who you think Calvery is and why.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 19, 2018, 11:22:15 PM
Yeah, 'cause Lovelady is the only person with a bald spot.

 ::)

Somebody's a little too sensitive.

In Martin at least, I'll wager that Lovelady's head would be practically an eyeball-magnet, as compared to most guys in that area.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 19, 2018, 11:56:38 PM
John,

Regarding your second question, you should read the research I did a couple of years ago on (self-described Native American) Stella Mae Jacob, and her TSBD colleagues, Gloria Jeanne Holt and Sharon Simmons, at the JFK Assassination Debate-Education Forum website, and the research Sandy Larsen and I did on Gloria Calvery, per se, on a couple of different threads at said website.  (Hopefully you aren't too lazy to do that.)

No, I'm not going to wade through thousands of pages of threads at a different website to try to locate your research.  Can you summarize here why you think this is Calvery?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 20, 2018, 02:06:14 AM
Quote
...
Match.  LOL.

John,

Are you not able to make out that woman's skirt in an enlarged and pertinent Darnell frame?

If you are able to make it out, can you not discern that her darker-colored blouse or sweater ends right at her waist line, i.e., that it is rather short and therefore distinctive, especially given the fact that it's contrasted with a medium-tone skirt, just like the skirt and sweater that that (tall, wide-hipped) woman we've been talking about in the Z-film is wearing?

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 21, 2018, 10:11:36 PM
Brian,

Maybe you haven't seen the one-second sliver of Couch or Darnel (in the Couch-Darnell synchronized gif) that I'm talking about.

In this sliver, you can see "Shelley and Lovelady" starting to cross Elm Street Extension, heading in the direction of the island, not following that policeman towards the railway yard.

(http://www.abload.de/img/couchloveladyshelley7l8kuy.gif)

-- Tommy  :)

PS  Who cares what Bart Kamp says?  The fact that he refuses to admit that You and Sandy Larsen and I have determined beyond any reasonable doubt that Gloria Calvery can be seen standing at the base of the TSBD steps in Darnell speaks volumes about his lack of intellectual honesty and/or sanity, imho.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 21, 2018, 11:19:09 PM
Don't you know how to do a "search" at the JFK Assassination Debate-Education Forum?

It should be pretty easy for you to type in the search term "Stella" or "Native" (as in Native American) to find my research on Jacob, Holt, and Simmons, and it shouldn't  be too difficult to type in "headscarves" or "Calvery" to find several threads that Sandy Larsen and I collaborated on during our "adventure" of finding Gloria Calvery in the photographic images.

...or you could just send me a link.

In the meantime, can you briefly explain what is so "distinctive" about the headscarf and the skirt of the figure in the Darnell frame?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 21, 2018, 11:26:16 PM
Just to make sure, is this the Calvery candidate?  A picture is worth a thousand words.

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/calvery-maybe.jpg)

I don't see anything distinctive about this figure.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 22, 2018, 08:04:13 PM
One of those stripes is barely discernible in the Darnell frame, above, when we enlarge it significantly

At what point does this sort of thing become more wishful thinking and confirmation bias than discerning?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 22, 2018, 08:38:41 PM
At what point does this sort of thing become more wishful thinking and confirmation bias than discerning?

John,

I suggest that you take a close look at the Z-film gif in "The Real Gloria Calvery" thread that I've just now bumped for you (and others) so that you can view an enlarged portion of the Z-film at about Z-165 and witness for yourself the actually not-so-bold horizontal stripes in Calvery's skirt, then go back to your Darnell frame with the red oval, above, and enlarge the heck out of it so that you can (only just, and right above the curving red line) make out one of those stripes, yourself.

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 22, 2018, 09:05:22 PM
Which one are you calling Calvery in the Z film?  And how do you know that?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on December 22, 2018, 09:23:45 PM
Helpful Gifs - Some added to Tommy & Brian's recent relevant posts.

(http://i.imgur.com/G0yR7BN.gif)

(http://www.abload.de/img/couchloveladyshelley7l8kuy.gif)

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2016_12/Darnell7.gif.f1f3f53f729be48702e577940da3fd35.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on December 23, 2018, 12:58:56 PM
Helpful Gifs - Some added to Tommy & Brian's recent relevant posts.

(http://i.imgur.com/G0yR7BN.gif)

(http://www.abload.de/img/couchloveladyshelley7l8kuy.gif)

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2016_12/Darnell7.gif.f1f3f53f729be48702e577940da3fd35.gif)

This thread is never-ending so it's easy to forget what the various theories are (other than the obvious one of it's supposed to be Oswald up in the vestibule). The last I can remember is the woman on the steps is Calvery talking to Bill Lovelady. It certainly looks like Lovelady is still up there (the man facing the Calvery figure). And based on the color image from the Z film, it certainly looks like Calvery down there on Elm as well as being up on the steps crying to Lovelady.

But one point of clarification - I also recall that someone said that the two male figures who are seen walking in the direction of the knoll area are also Lovelady and Shelley(?)

If you watch the above clips, then one of the two men walking toward the knoll cannot be Lovelady. The reason is because you can see the cop running toward the entrance of the TSBD as the two men are walking. Then, mere seconds later, in the other clip of Calvery and Lovelady, you can also see the cop.

Lovelady obviously cannot be in two places at once so I've always thought that Lovelady is not one of the two men walking away; instead, I've always thought it was Lovelady still up on the steps where Calvery is seen talking to him.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 23, 2018, 01:16:16 PM
This thread is never-ending so it's easy to forget what the various theories are (other than the obvious one of it's supposed to be Oswald up in the vestibule). The last I can remember is the woman on the steps is Calvery talking to Bill Lovelady. It certainly looks like Lovelady is still up there (the man facing the Calvery figure). And based on the color image from the Z film, it certainly looks like Calvery down there on Elm as well as being up on the steps crying to Lovelady.

But one point of clarification - I also recall that someone said that the two male figures who are seen walking in the direction of the knoll area are also Lovelady and Shelley(?)

If you watch the above clips, then one of the two men walking toward the knoll cannot be Lovelady. The reason is because you can see the cop running toward the entrance of the TSBD as the two men are walking. Then, mere seconds later, in the other clip of Calvery and Lovelady, you can also see the cop.

Lovelady obviously cannot be in two places at once so I've always thought that Lovelady is not one of the two men walking away; instead, I've always thought it was Lovelady still up on the steps where Calvery is seen talking to him.

Michael,

Which clip are you referring to?

In the very top one, I believe that the person who is running from left to right isn't the policeman (Marion Baker), but "Running Woman".

-- Tommy  :)

EDIT:  Nope, I'm wrong.

"Running Woman" was wearing a light-colored blouse or sweater.

My bad.

Nice catch!

Not sure I understand your logic about Lovelady, though.

How do you know that the guy on the steps talking with Calvery isn't someone who just happens to look like Lovelady?

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on December 23, 2018, 02:26:12 PM
Michael,

Which clip are you referring to?

In the very top one, I believe that the person who is running from left to right isn't the policeman (Marion Baker), but "Running Woman".

-- Tommy  :)

EDIT:  Nope, I'm wrong.

"Running Woman" was wearing a light-colored blouse or sweater.

My bad.

Nice catch!

Not sure I understand your logic about Lovelady, though.

How do you know that the guy on the steps talking with Calvery isn't someone who just happens to look like Lovelady?

I'll admit that one of the two guys walking toward the knoll does look vaguely like Lovelady.  But the opposite is also true - we all know it's Lovelady who was up there standing in the bright sun as he leaned over the rail and his photo was snapped by Altgens (during the shooting sequence).

I'm thinking, too, that despite what people say in their testimony, memory can be faulty. If he said he went down to the knoll, he probably did - he has no real reason to lie about that. But I don't think he rushed down there with Shelly so soon after the shots were fired. Therefore, because that figure above looks like him (the one with Calvery in it), with his shiny bald pate overexposed in the sun, that's why I'm thinking it's him.

Also, earlier in one of those clips (I'm sure you can find it somewhere) there is a frame or two of him in his "leaning over the rail" position and that figure as well as the "talking to Calvery" figure look very similar.

So the whole point of this is - he's up there, the car drives by, he leans over during the shooting sequence, he stays up there, the commotion gets started, he's still up there, Calvery comes running up crying and he's there and that's where he and Calvery converge, the cop runs by, *then* he and Shelly go on down.  Again, if he says something differently in his testimony, I think he was probably just wrong in remembering how it happened.  Nothing devious - just misremembering.

But of course as we all know in this case, *someone* will say that he wasn't misremembering but lying to cover up some unknown deviousness on his part - LOL.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on December 23, 2018, 04:15:13 PM
Here's his testimony.  The first portion makes it sound like he saw Calvery up on the steps. At least it does to me because it talks about him being at the top step and then it segues right into Calvery.

Then later he says he looked back and saw the cop running into the building, meaning it could be him down there with Shelly. Amazingly, if he said he looked back and saw the cop, you don't see him turn to look but it could have happpened after he was out of the film scene.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm

Here's that other image during the shooting.  You can tell it's during the shooting because the black guy leaning on the wall with his hands in his pocket is still there.

(http://www.oswald-innocent.com/images/WiegmanB.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on December 23, 2018, 04:54:19 PM
For God sake Brian, give it a rest. Nothing's been proven that that is or is not Oswald. You love to argue one way or another - if someone says it's not Oswald, then you go into Attack A mode. If someone says it is Oswald but their "evidence" differs from yours - in other words if they don't agree with you that the Chris "67% of the frames have been removed" Davidson blob blow up is not Stanton, then you go into Attack B mode.

I know what you basic problem is - you're still - to this day - just xxxxxx because you got kicked out of the (un)Ed forum (also known as the "believe my bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns here and buy my book too" forum).

Lighten up, will you? We know the assassination was a conspiracy.

And you know what else?  You're a terrible - one of the all-time worst - crackpot when it comes to this case.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 23, 2018, 07:43:44 PM
How do you know that the guy on the steps talking with Calvery isn't someone who just happens to look like Lovelady?

Hoo boy.  Two can use that line of reasoning.

How do you know the figure near Lovelady isn't someone who just happens to be wearing something that might have a stripe?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 23, 2018, 08:26:38 PM
It should be pretty easy for you to type in the search term "Stella" or "Native" (as in Native American) to find my research on Jacob, Holt, and Simmons,

Well, I found this thread, and you lost me right out of the starting gate with this graphic.

(https://i1377.photobucket.com/albums/ah64/sanfordlarsen/jfk_assassination_forums/research/identification_of_spectators/stella_jacob_group/misidentified_calvery_group_zpsudgok8bp.jpg)

You then go on to say that the dark-skinned woman can't be Calvery, but she might be Stella Jacob who was Native-American.  (never mind the fact that she looks more African-American).

But how do you even know these are the same 3 people?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 23, 2018, 08:54:03 PM
Next, I turn to your argument that this is actually Gloria Calvery in Zapruder (the tall woman on the right):

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/calvery-in-zapruder.jpg)

And you base this on a figure seen in the Betzner photo:

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/calvery-in-betzner.jpg)

(however, you don't really explain how you know it's Calvery in Betzner either)....

Then having claimed that this is Calvery and that she is standing two people away from a woman in a white dress and a white scarf, therefore the woman on the steps in Darnell must necessarily be the same woman-in-white, and therefore the woman near her on the steps in black must also necessarily be Calvery.

Is that a fair synopsis?

My question:

Is there any particular reason to think that the woman in white (who you surmised was Karan Hicks or Carol Reed - because they said they watched the motorcade with Calvery), remained in the company of the woman in black?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 23, 2018, 09:50:16 PM
So you are unable or unwilling to summarize how you identified Calvery in the Z film.

But I should just accept that you are right.

John,

I already have, at this Forum and at the JFK Assassination Debate-Education Forum (do you ever go there?), but you've worn me out, now, due to your refusing to understand the combination of factors involved in my and Sandy's and Brian's methodology, and your contrarian mindset, and your incessant nitpicking.

No, I don't expect you to blindly accept that I am right, but I would hope that you would read with an open mind what Sandy and I have posted about Stella Mae Jacob, Gloria Holt, Sharon Simmons, and about Gloria Calvery and her motorcade-watching group (including the "Woman All In White").

And I wish that you would take into consideration the fact that Brian publically "ate crow" when he posted that he'd recently spoken with Calvery's son on the phone, and that he (the son) said that his mother could be seen in fhe "Butler photo" (sic; the Betzner-3 photo).

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 23, 2018, 10:25:23 PM
I already have, at this Forum and at the JFK Assassination Debate-Education Forum (do you ever go there?), but you've worn me out, now, due to your refusing to understand the combination of factors involved in my and Sandy's and Brian's methodology, and your contrarian mindset, and your incessant nitpicking.

Questioning your assumptions is not just "nitpicking".

Quote
No, I don't expect you to blindly accept that I am right, but I would hope that you would read with an open mind what Sandy and I have posted about Stella Mae Jacob, Gloria Holt, Sharon Simmons, and about Gloria Calvery and her motorcade-watching group (including the "Woman All In White").

I did read it with an open mind and I assume that I summarized your argument correctly because you didn't correct me.  Now let's assume for the sake of argument that Calvery's son really did correctly identify Calvery in Betzner (and who called it "Butler"?).  How are you certain that tall-woman in Zapruder is the same person as glasses-woman in Betzner?

Also, I don't know why you're expecting anyone on this forum to be familiar with what goes on at a different forum.  I'm getting really tired of "it's been proven over there" arguments with no links or quotes provided.  If you can't present the proof here for discussion then why are you discussing it here to begin with?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on December 23, 2018, 11:38:21 PM
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2016_12/Darnell7.gif.f1f3f53f729be48702e577940da3fd35.gif)

For the above, I'm going to go out on a limb here and state:

** There's a woman all in white climbing the lower steps
** To her left is a black scarved woman; she appears to be talking to the person in front of her
** The person in front of her and on a higher step appears to be bald because of the over-exposed head; you can just make out a pattern on his shirt - I'm guessing this is Lovelady simply because he was there seconds before leaning and watching when his photo was taken by Altgens
** The cop is getting closer to that vicinity as he continues to run

If that is Lovelady on the steps, then he can't be one of the two guys down on the street because you can also see the cop briefly running in that clip

That's the way I see this.  What it all means is a whole other question.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on December 23, 2018, 11:38:35 PM
Right.  Lovelady could be the only possible guy with a bald spot.  Oh, except the guy with the bald spot in the Darnell clip.

The only reason you're not "entertaining" me is because it would become readily apparent how much of your "proofs" are ridiculous handwaving.  You can't answer the questions, so you just claim it's already been proven.  That's exactly what WC apologists do.
Let's hear the interview.  Given how you lied about what Rosa said about LHO with a Pepsi, and lied about things that Debra Conway said about you, I don't trust a damn thing you claim about what people say.

What a compelling proof.   ::)

So bald spot proves Lovelady and sweater proves Calvery.  You're a hoot.  Show me a short-length sweater in Darnell's black-blob-person to begin with.  Your "skill" involves imagining things in blurry images.
Questioning your assumptions is not just "nitpicking".

I did read it with an open mind and I assume that I summarized your argument correctly because you didn't correct me.  Now let's assume for the sake of argument that Calvery's son really did correctly identify Calvery in Betzner (and who called it "Butler"?).  How are you certain that tall-woman in Zapruder is the same person as glasses-woman in Betzner?

Also, I don't know why you're expecting anyone on this forum to be familiar with what goes on at a different forum.  I'm getting really tired of "it's been proven over there" arguments with no links or quotes provided.  If you can't present the proof here for discussion then why are you discussing it here to begin with?

If memory serves me, I recall from attending Italian language classes that "Iacoletti" in the folklore of the countryside
translates colloquially as "troll slayer"....

Thank you for your service, John, pulling a shift here on a long holiday weekend. You are really going the extra
mile in this thread!

- "Blue Coated Guy" in the Parking Lot  :(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 23, 2018, 11:50:39 PM
Questioning your assumptions is not just "nitpicking".

I did read it with an open mind and I assume that I summarized your argument correctly because you didn't correct me. Now let's assume for the sake of argument that Calvery's son really did correctly identify Calvery in Betzner (and who called it "Butler"?).  How are you certain that tall-woman in Zapruder is the same person as glasses-woman in Betzner?

Also, I don't know why you're expecting anyone on this forum to be familiar with what goes on at a different forum.  I'm getting really tired of "it's been proven over there" arguments with no links or quotes provided.  If you can't present the proof here for discussion then why are you discussing it here to begin with?

John,

I'm glad you referred to the tall woman we've been talking about in Betzner-3 as "glasses woman," because Gloria Calvery's ever-present glasses are hard to make out in that photo. (Perhaps you did that because you didn't want to admit that she's the only woman in the blowup you provided who's wearing a "black" blouse or sweater and a "black" headscarf?)

Regardless, let me ask you a question:

Are you familiar with the names John Templin, Ernest Brandt, and Jean Newman?  (They were probably the only three people who were correctly identified -- by Thierry "Fake News" Speth, Don Roberdeau, and Robin Unger -- in the portion of the Z-film that we're concerned with here.)

(I'll try to post a Dallas newspaper article about Templin and Brandt to freshen your memory.)

To be continued ...

Suffice it to say that then-25-year-old John Templin is visible to the immediate left of your "glasses woman" in Betzner-3, and that both he and 37 year-old, fedora-wearing Brandt can be seen standing next to each other in Willis-5 (I'm typing this post on my android and at 69 years of age I'm somewhat techonogically challenged, so I'm afraid you're  going to look them up, yourself).

Of course you'll have to compare both of those photos with a Z-film frame to see that Templin was standing next to your "glasses woman," and that Brandt was standing next to him.

--Tommy  :)

Edit: Here's  that newspaper article.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/downtown-dallas/2012/11/22/two-eyewitnesses-reunite-once-a-year-on-anniversary-of-kennedys-death
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on December 25, 2018, 03:00:37 PM
Not sure if discussed earlier but while staring at all those photos and gifs, I came to a question can this be the same person?
This person is looking outward the TSBD while two women with scarfs are in front of him/her. Check the distinctive left ear shape in Darnel-Wiegman.
If we assume that the person is the same in both films and if Altgens 6 showing Oswald (not Lovelady) as Doorman than this might be the same person, Oswald.
Yes, I know, too many ifs and too poor images to conclude anything but the clue might be good.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bNmbt0fV/Darnell-Wiegman-collage.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/9Qz9t4Wm/Untitled.jpg)

Check the GIF bellow, too.
content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2016_12/Darnell7.gif.f1f3f53f729be48702e577940da3fd35.gif (http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2016_12/Darnell7.gif.f1f3f53f729be48702e577940da3fd35.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 25, 2018, 05:18:04 PM
Not sure if discussed earlier, but while staring at all those photos and gifs, I came to question can this be the same person?
This person is looking outward from the TSBD while two women with scarves are in front of him/her. Check the distinctive left ear shape in Darnel-Wiegman.
If we assume that the person is the same in both films and if Altgens 6 showing Oswald (not Lovelady) as Doorman then this might be the same person, Oswald.
Yes, I know, too many ifs and too poor images to conclude anything but the clue might be good.

Patrick,

I never realized Oswald was so bald.

-- Tommy  :)

PS  In your theory, who is "Prayer Man" -- Lee Harvey Oswald, Sarah Stanton, or someone else?

PPS  What clue?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on December 25, 2018, 05:32:19 PM
Patrick,

I never realized Oswald was so bald.

-- Tommy  :)

PS  In your theory, who is "Prayer Man" -- Lee Harvey Oswald, Sarah Stanton, or someone else?

Neither was Lovelady but people still believe this was Lovelady.

On the second look, why do you think that this person was "so bald"? The Sun was strong so it was not needed to be bald at all but short, bright hair would create the image we see, too.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 25, 2018, 05:46:26 PM
Neither was Lovelady but people still believe this was Lovelady.

On the second look, why do you think that this person was "so bald"? The Sun was strong so it was not needed to be bald at all but short, bright hair would create the image we see, too.

Patrick,

I find you very hard to understand.

What do you mean when you say, "Neither was Lovelady"?

Lovelady wasn't what, Patrick?

Lovelady wasn't something, too?

Yes, we have no bananas?

LOL

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on December 25, 2018, 05:58:02 PM
Patrick,

I find you very hard to understand.

What do you mean when you say, "Neither was Lovelady"?

Lovelady wasn't what, Patrick?

Lovelady wasn't something, too?

Yes, we have no bananas?

LOL

-- Tommy  :)

Bold.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 25, 2018, 06:25:29 PM
I clearly see four persons, not sure what "?" is. Persons marked 1, 2, 3, 4 are looking towards the TSBD entrance and person circled in red seems to look outwards. What I see is fair resemblance in shapes and shades between Wiegman and Darnel frames considering the person circled in red so this makes me conclude this person is looking outwards. It is another question who this person is. If we assume it is the same person than it might be Lovelady or Oswald depending on who you believe Doorman person was.

(https://i.postimg.cc/4d01Xcbn/Untitled2.jpg)

Patrick,

We already know that "Doorman" in Altgens-6 and the person circled in red in the Wiegman frame (above, on the previous page) are the same person -- Billy Lovelady.

Sorry, dude, but you're wasting our time here.

Why don't you go register at the JFK Assassination Debate - Education Forum and read up on the subject matter?

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 26, 2018, 06:53:25 AM
Suffice it to say that then-25-year-old John Templin is visible to the immediate left of your "glasses woman" in Betzner-3, and that both he and 37 year-old, fedora-wearing Brandt can be seen standing next to each other in Willis-5 (I'm typing this post on my android and at 69 years of age I'm somewhat techonogically challenged, so I'm afraid you're  going to look them up, yourself).

I?m not sure how this demonstrates that glasses-woman is Calvery. Or even that Templin is correctly identified for that matter. Or that tall woman in Zapruder is even the same person as glasses woman in Betzner. You haven?t connected the dots at all.

But even if glasses-woman is Calvery, you still haven?t demonstrated that black-blob in Darnell is the same as glasses woman other than a totally subjective claim that you think the sweater somehow matches or that you think you see a stripe. It?s all conjecture. Which is fine, but don?t think it?s proof of anything.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 26, 2018, 12:09:30 PM
Is there some independent account that Templin and Calvery stood together? And how do you know that?s Templin?

John,

If you will read any of the newspaper or magazine articles that mention John Templin in the context of the JFK assassination, you'll realize that he and his older friend Ernest Brandt claimed to have been standing a few feet from Kennedy when the first shot rang out.

If you'll look at the group of people in the Z-film who were standing the nearest to Kennedy when the first shot rang out, you'll see that all of them are women except for two men who are standing next to each other, two men who ended up going to Dealey Plaza together for many years every November 22 to commemorate the event -- John Templin and his older friend Ernest Brandt, the latter of whom always brought with him the fedora which he can be seen wearing in the Z-film and in Willis-5.

But what does it matter whether or not Thierry "Fake News" Speth, Don Roberdeau, and/or Robin Unger labeled them correctly on the Z-film frame?  What does it matter what the names of these two guys are -- these two guys in a sea of females?

The fact is, when you look at that Z-film frame, and at Betzner-3, and Willis-5, and compare them, you realize that your tall "Glasses Woman" is standing next to a young man, and that he, in turn, is standing next to a suit-wearing man who's wearing a fedora hat.

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 26, 2018, 09:06:54 PM
If you'll look at the group of people in the Z-film who were standing the nearest to Kennedy when the first shot rang out, you'll see that all of them are women except for two men who are standing next to each other, two men who ended up going to Dealey Plaza together for many years every November 22 to commemorate the event -- John Templin and his older friend Ernest Brandt, the latter of whom always brought with him the fedora which he can be seen wearing in the Z-film and in Willis-5.

What does any of this have to do with Calvery?  And where do you even see a fedora in Betzner?

Quote
The fact is, when you look at that Z-film frame, and at Betzner-3, and Willis-5, and compare them, you realize that your tall "Glasses Woman" is standing next to a young man, and that he, in turn, is standing next to a suit-wearing man who's wearing a fedora hat.

You can tell all this by looking at their backs in the Z film?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 26, 2018, 10:52:00 PM
I wrote:

When you look at the group of people in the Z-film who were standing nearest to Kennedy when the first shot rang out around Z190, you can see that all of them are women except for the two men standing next to each other. These men are John Templin on the left and Ernest Brandt on the right, and they ended up going to Dealey Plaza every November 22 to commemorate the event. Brandt always brought his fedora hat which he can be seen wearing in the Z-film and in the Willis-5 photograph. When you compare the Z-frame, Betzner-3, and Willis-5, you can see that your tall "Glasses Woman" is standing next to a young man (Templin), and that he, in turn, is standing next to a man who's wearing a suit and a fedora hat (Brandt).

You replied: 

1) "What does any of this have to do with Calvery?

John, do you seriously doubt that your Glasses Woman in Betzner-3 is the same person I'm saying is Gloria Calvery? (Read that sentence again to make sure you understand it.)

If "yes," then all I can do is suggest to you that you compare Z-frame 186 (or so) with Betzner-3, and that you compare both of those with Willis-5, so that you can see the sequence of people standing there, and realize that your "Glasses Woman" is indeed my "Gloria Calvery".


2) And where do you even see a fedora in Betzner?

John, as I told you in an earlier post, Don Roberdeau's/Robin Unger's "John Templin" can be seen next to your Glasses Woman / my Gloria Calvery in Betzner-3, but not his fedora-wearing friend, "Ernest Brandt," for the simple reason that in that photo "Brandt" was blocked from the Betzner's camera's view by a Secret Service man riding in the Queen Mary follow-up car.

However, all three of them (your Glasses Woman /my Gloria Calvery, "John Templin," and fedora-wearing "Ernest Brandt" (plus an apparently unattached woman, "Jean Newman") can be seen from behind in the Z-film.


3) You can tell all this by looking at their backs in the Z film?

See my replies to 1 and 2, above, John.

-- Tommy  :)


You can find Betzner-3 and Willis-5 on this McAdam's page:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm

(Note: "John Templin," his fedora-wearing friend "Ernest Brandt," and (an apparently unattached) "Jean Newman" can be seen directly above the center of the Queen Mary follow-up car in Willis-5.)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 29, 2018, 12:20:27 AM
Brian,

Do you believe that we live in a "Deep State"?

(Last I heard, President Trump and Vladimir Putin claim that we do.)

 -- Tommy  :)

.......

Brian's reply:

So does Peter Dale Scott ...

.......

Brian,

Did you know that Professor John M. Newman, having read Tennent H. Bagley's Spy Wars and Spymaster, convinced PDS last March that Yuri Nosenko (the KGB guy who claimed to have handled LHO's KGB file at least four times in the USSR, and that the KGB hadn't even interviewed the Marine radar operator during the 2.5 years he lived there) was a false detector?

-- Tommy  :)

PS As can be seen in Newman's two-part "Spy Wars" youtube presentation, Bagley's books also convinced Newman that "Monster Plot" Anatoliy Golitsyn was, much to PDS's chagrin, a true defector.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on December 31, 2018, 07:40:41 PM
Agree, but KarenWestbrookImage remains a plausible choice, as the person seen climbing the stairs just ahead of GloriaCalveryImage, and she does not appear identifiable anywhere else in that specific DFilm Clip.

Larry Trotter,

Why can't you write normally?

-- Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 19, 2019, 07:09:18 AM
Sandy Larsen is a member of this Forum, and is free to debate or to not debate.
The other three you mention are welcome to join this Forum as long as they debate within the rules of the Forum.
DiEugenio will never join this Forum, as he knows his past record of supporting the late William Cooper's "The driver shot JFK" would be open for direct questioning here. :D

DiEugenio, will never join this forum because he really doesn't like being challenged.  If he had the power to boot guys like David Von Pein and Lance Payette from the ED forum, they'd be gone in a millisecond.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Colin Crow on January 19, 2019, 07:35:17 AM
DiEugenio, will never join this forum because he really doesn't like being challenged.  If he had the power to boot guys like David Von Pein and Lance Payette from the ED forum, they'd be gone in a millisecond.

I would really like to debate DVP but he merely lurks here from time to time. Yet he freely takes selected attributed quotes from members here to assemble some sort LN argument. I live in hope.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 25, 2019, 08:22:29 PM
Thomas,

Even if it was, you probably wouldn't understand it anyway, like alot of things you spout.

 ;D

Dear Johnny B. Sad,

"You talkin' to me?"

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

PS  Even if what was, Johnny?

Are you sure you're on the right thread?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on January 31, 2019, 11:58:18 PM
Lovelady-----"I was standing on the top step to the far right against the wall of the entranceway..."

Quite right if  you look at the entrance to the building as in the available photographs showing the front of the building.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on February 04, 2019, 04:38:46 PM
Lovelady-----"I was standing on the top step to the far right against the wall of the entranceway..."

Quite right if  you look at the entrance to the building as in the available photographs showing the front of the building.
Correct, MrMitcham, as seen in various film/photo images, BillyNolanLoveladyImage's "far right" on the landing/top step would be the west wall. I can't imagine any logical reason why anyone would attempt to indicate otherwise.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 04, 2019, 04:43:52 PM
Correct, MrMitcham, as seen in various film/photo images, BillyNolanLoveladyImage's "far right" on the landing/top step would be the west wall. I can't imagine any logical reason why anyone would attempt to indicate otherwise.

Far right as you look at the entrance from Dealey Plaza is the East wall, Mr Trotter.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on February 04, 2019, 05:22:16 PM
Correct, MrMitcham, as seen in various film/photo images, BillyNolanLoveladyImage's "far right" on the landing/top step would be the west wall. I can't imagine any logical reason why anyone would attempt to indicate otherwise.
Far right as you look at the entrance from Dealey Plaza is the East wall, Mr Trotter.
Mr Mitcham, all reproduced images of the TSBD entrance portal I have seen indicate BillyNolanLoveladyImage to be facing south, so to his right would be west.
If you wish to claim his reference to his right actually meant east, please provide corroborating information.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2019, 05:42:14 PM
Mr Iacoletti, reliable provable indicative information has been developed as evidence that PrayerPersonImage does represent SarahDeanStanton.

Please enumerate this "provable indicative information".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2019, 07:10:51 PM
As stated, "Said evidentiary information can be found, but I see no need to locate and reproduce it".

Of course you don't.  Because there is none.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on February 04, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
Of course you don't.  Because there is none.

Now that sir, is an incorrect statement made by yourself.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 04, 2019, 10:06:22 PM
Mr Mitcham, all reproduced images of the TSBD entrance portal I have seen indicate BillyNolanLoveladyImage to be facing south, so to his right would be west.
If you wish to claim his reference to his right actually meant east, please provide corroborating information.

I am not arguing that to his right as he was standing is not West. The comment by Albert  was "Lovelady-----"I was standing on the top step to the far right against the wall of the entranceway..."  He meant to the right as we look at the entrance, which would be by the East wall of the entrance.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 05, 2019, 08:28:17 PM


This is a blow up of the frame from the Hughes film.

(https://i.postimg.cc/fVPPfFZd/Hughes-frame.png) (https://postimages.org/)

Can anybody truthfully say this is Lovelady?

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2019, 05:05:44 PM
Yes, it's always everybody else's fault for not acknowledging your brilliance.

Face it, you are unwelcome everywhere you go.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2019, 07:26:04 PM
What substance?  It's just yet another one of your usual "I am the way, the truth, and the light, and everyone else is just jealous of my genius" meltdowns that you have on a regular basis.  At least until you get banned from yet another forum for behaving like an ass.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on February 11, 2019, 01:04:12 AM
LINK DELETED: Links To websites which contain materials or links to materials which are unsuitable for viewing by minors is forbidden/then-went-outside-to-watch-p-parade/

This is pretty convincing. I had my doubts about the film showing LHO or someone else. But this is now the second independent corroboration of what LHO told them when he was interviewed. Hosty and Fritz would have had to go into a room and compare notes to get the story straight and I just can't visualize them doing that. They both heard what he said and wrote it down independently.

What I'm amazed at though is have these Hosty notes never been seen as Kamp says? This case has been churned a million times and I find it hard to believe the notes were just revealed 55 years after the fact.

EDIT - this forum won't let me post an external link so the link I tried to post is Kamp's PM site showing the Hosty notes.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2019, 03:20:15 AM
Looks like it's all over, folks. The newly uncovered James Hosty note----------written on the back of a DPD affidavit paper----------confirms exactly what the LHO=PrayerMan people have been saying all along:

O[swald] stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P[residential] Parade.

Mr Oswald is Prayer Man.

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 11, 2019, 03:44:35 AM
Looks like it's all over, folks. The newly uncovered James Hosty note----------written on the back of a DPD affidavit paper----------confirms exactly what the LHO=PrayerMan people have been saying all along:

O[swald] stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P[residential] Parade.

Mr Oswald is Prayer Man.

 Thumb1:


Then what was Oswald sitting on? Could it have been a wooden stool from the front storage room by the front staircase that Oswald brought out with him, about what, 12:28pm? He only had to open the front glass door which is hinged on the left side, as you see it from inside the lobby, about maybe a 1.5 ft, so the swing of the door would not even have touched BW.Frazier who at least 3 ft in front of the door if he is by the top part of the handrail.


Therefore its possible Oswald could have "sat" partially on this stool, and that is why he is appears 5'3
" in height, in relation to the 6'1" BW Frazier?


Would anyone have noticed Oswald going back into thru the front door, with stool in hand, and returning it to the front storage room by the front stairs?


Did Baker and Truly actually 1st see Oswald just after Oswald comes out of the storage room from having returned the stool?


Is there any actual proof of this hypothetical or is it a waste of time?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2019, 04:49:19 AM
Looks like it's all over, folks. The newly uncovered James Hosty note----------written on the back of a DPD affidavit paper----------confirms exactly what the LHO=PrayerMan people have been saying all along:

O[swald] stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P[residential] Parade.

Mr Oswald is Prayer Man.

 Thumb1:

Friends! Anyone who has been following this issue without bias will understand the scale of the breakthrough that James Hosty's note represents. It proves beyond any question that the interrogation report filed under the sole name of James W. Bookhout was a despicable lie. This report deprived Mr Oswald of his alibi by distorting completely what he had been telling Captain Fritz in custody.

Here's the first interrogation report to which Bookhout put his name. It's a joint report written with James Hosty:

Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and 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 is 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 the building.

Here's the Hosty note that has just come to light:

O[swald] stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P[residential] Parade.

Now! The thing to note about both of the above is that they are saying the same thing. But with this teeny weeny difference: the Hosty note lays it all out plain and simple, whereas the joint Bookhout/Hosty report uses weasel words to create some ambiguity.

Now!! Just take a look at what happens to Mr Oswald's reported words in the subsequent Bookhout-alone report. It's quite something...

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 form 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 employee?s lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly.

This report was written to hide some simple facts, viz.--------------
1. Mr Oswald visited the second-floor lunchroom before the assassination (Ms Carolyn Arnold and Ms Sarah Stanton are 100% vindicated!)
2. Mr Oswald took his Coca Cola down to the first floor and went out front to watch the parade
3. There was no second-floor lunchroom encounter with Officer Baker and Mr Truly.

The mantra of the Anyone-But-LHO-As-Prayer-Person crowd-----------
Oh but that's crazy, Oswald himself never claimed to have gone out to see the President!
-----------can no longer be taken seriously by any self-respecting researcher.

Mr Oswald is Prayer Man.  Thumb1:


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2019, 05:00:26 AM
As I've already stated, no self-respecting researcher will deny the bombshell importance of these words from James Hosty:

O[swald] stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P[residential] Parade.


 Thumb1:



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2019, 06:16:33 AM
Friends! Anyone who has been following this issue without bias will understand the scale of the breakthrough that James Hosty's note represents. It proves beyond any question that the interrogation report filed under the sole name of James W. Bookhout was a despicable lie. This report deprived Mr Oswald of his alibi by distorting completely what he had been telling Captain Fritz in custody.

Here's the first interrogation report to which Bookhout put his name. It's a joint report written with James Hosty:

Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and 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 is 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 the building.

Here's the Hosty note that has just come to light:

O[swald] stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P[residential] Parade.

Now! The thing to note about both of the above is that they are saying the same thing. But with this teeny weeny difference: the Hosty note lays it all out plain and simple, whereas the joint Bookhout/Hosty report uses weasel words to create some ambiguity.

Now!! Just take a look at what happens to Mr Oswald's reported words in the subsequent Bookhout-alone report. It's quite something...

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 form 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 employee?s lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly.

This report was written to hide some simple facts, viz.--------------
1. Mr Oswald visited the second-floor lunchroom before the assassination (Ms Carolyn Arnold and Ms Sarah Stanton are 100% vindicated!)
2. Mr Oswald took his Coca Cola down to the first floor and went out front to watch the parade
3. There was no second-floor lunchroom encounter with Officer Baker and Mr Truly.

The mantra of the Anyone-But-LHO-As-Prayer-Person crowd-----------
Oh but that's crazy, Oswald himself never claimed to have gone out to see the President!
-----------can no longer be taken seriously by any self-respecting researcher.

Mr Oswald is Prayer Man.  Thumb1:

There has always been a great oddity contained in the original Hosty/Bookhout interrogation report:

"Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed the building."

Sheesh, guys, maybe you could give us some idea of, like, where exactly on the first damn floor he's claiming to have been. Cos, ya know, he is the prime suspect in the assassination and all! Is a bit of detail too much to ask for?

The newly discovered (by Mr. Bart Kamp) handwritten note from James Hosty both gives us the detail we were looking for, and explains why there was no way in hell it was ever going to find its way into an official printed report:

"Then went outside to watch P[residential] Parade."

The game's well and truly up now. Only fools and knaves will continue to cling on to the discredited lunchroom encounter garbage and its attendant idiocies. And only fools and knaves will continue to deny the significance of the figure standing on the west side of the doorway in the Wiegman and Darnell films. It's none other than Mr Oswald.

The arc of the moral universe may be long, friends, but it really does bend toward justice.

This is an historic week in JFK assassination research. Thumb1:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2019, 04:26:26 PM
PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: Prayer Man is Oswald.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? Not even Oswald said he went out front!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: There's lots of evidence pointing to the contrary.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? There's no evidence to the contrary!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: What about Harry Holmes's WC testimony, and...

LONE NUTTER: You call that evidence? Ha ha ha. Nothing to see here!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: What if we were to find hard evidence that Oswald said he went out front?

LONE NUTTER: So you admit you have no hard evidence! Ha ha ha. Try harder!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: Actually, we have just uncovered a note written by Agent James Hosty which states that Oswald said he went out front.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? Oswald was a liar!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: But the Hosty note proves that Captain Fritz and co. lied about what he said in custody.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? Oswald was a liar!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: But the Hosty note corroborates Carolyn Arnold and Sarah Stanton's sighting of Oswald in the lunchroom before the assassination.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? There's absolutely no photographic or film evidence of Oswald in the lunchroom before the assassination. Ha ha ha. Try harder!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2019, 05:19:33 PM
The Hosty note that is breaking hearts...

(https://i.imgur.com/Al8yyot.jpg)

But hang on! Maybe the P. in 'P. Parade' stands for Post-Assassination or Pandemonium?

Skilled researchers will confirm that 'Post-Assassination Parade' and 'Pandemonium Parade' were far more common expressions in 1963 Dallas than 'Presidential Parade'.

 :D

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on February 11, 2019, 07:39:21 PM
PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: Prayer Man is Oswald.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? Not even Oswald said he went out front!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: There's lots of evidence pointing to the contrary.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? There's no evidence to the contrary!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: What about Harry Holmes's WC testimony, and...

LONE NUTTER: You call that evidence? Ha ha ha. Nothing to see here!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: What if we were to find hard evidence that Oswald said he went out front?

LONE NUTTER: So you admit you have no hard evidence! Ha ha ha. Try harder!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: Actually, we have just uncovered a note written by Agent James Hosty which states that Oswald said he went out front.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? Oswald was a liar!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: But the Hosty note proves that Captain Fritz and co. lied about what he said in custody.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? Oswald was a liar!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: But the Hosty note corroborates Carolyn Arnold and Sarah Stanton's sighting of Oswald in the lunchroom before the assassination.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? There's absolutely no photographic or film evidence of Oswald in the lunchroom before the assassination. Ha ha ha. Try harder!


I tend to wonder, as I do often wander, to whom this Reply is addressed. I tend to assume that "LONE NUTTER" is a reference to those that embrace the LeeHarveyOswald/LoneGunmanAssassinTheory. And, I tend to assume that "PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE" is a reference to those that embrace the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory.

For clarification, I have yet to be able to embrace either theory.
However, I do believe that there is reliable indicative information as positive evidence that RoyTruly and MarrionBaker did encounter LeeOswald at the SecondFloorLunchRoom about 60-90 seconds after the shooting/fatal wounding of JohnKennedySr and shooting/critical wounding of JohnConnallyJr.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2019, 09:17:58 PM
Friends, one cannot but be impressed at the fact that, when the Prayer Man theory was developed over 5 years ago, a bold double inference was made from the available evidence that Mr Oswald had claimed in custody
A) to have gone to the 2nd floor lunchroom for a coke before (not after) the motorcade
B) to have gone out front for the motorcade.

And now we get this stunning confirmation, in the clearest language possible, of that bold double inference:

(https://i.imgur.com/Al8yyot.jpg)

Tsk tsk. A terrible, terrible week for the anti-Prayer Man zealots  :'(


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 11, 2019, 09:42:32 PM
Friends, one cannot but be impressed at the fact that, when the Prayer Man theory was developed over 5 years ago, a bold double inference was made from the available evidence that Mr Oswald had claimed in custody
A) to have gone to the 2nd floor lunchroom for a coke before (not after) the motorcade
B) to have gone out front for the motorcade.

And now we get this stunning confirmation, in the clearest language possible, of that bold double inference:

(https://i.imgur.com/Al8yyot.jpg)

Tsk tsk. A terrible, terrible week for the anti-Prayer Man zealots  :'(

Alan,

Prayer Man advocates discount the sworn testimonies of Marion Baker, Roy Truly and Jeraldean Reid. They have three or four others committing perjury as well. Methinks your use of "zealots" is misdirected. If you want to see a real zealot, look in the mirror.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 11, 2019, 09:46:25 PM
Quite a great new find. Hosty confirms that Oswald is Prayer Man.

How so? 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2019, 09:47:58 PM
Alan,

Prayer Man advocates discount the sworn testimonies of Marion Baker, Roy Truly and Jeraldean Reid. They have three or four others committing perjury as well. Methinks your use of "zealots" is misdirected. If you want to see a real zealot, look in the mirror.

Hello Mr Nickerson!

Do you accept that Mr Oswald did in fact claim to have
A) visited the 2nd floor lunchroom before the motorcade
B) gone out front to watch the motorcade?

If not, how do you explain this from Agent Hosty?

(https://i.imgur.com/Al8yyot.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 11, 2019, 09:52:26 PM
Friends, one cannot but be impressed at the fact that, when the Prayer Man theory was developed over 5 years ago, a bold double inference was made from the available evidence that Mr Oswald had claimed in custody
A) to have gone to the 2nd floor lunchroom for a coke before (not after) the motorcade
B) to have gone out front for the motorcade.

And now we get this stunning confirmation, in the clearest language possible, of that bold double inference:

(https://i.imgur.com/Al8yyot.jpg)

Tsk tsk. A terrible, terrible week for the anti-Prayer Man zealots  :'(

The highlighted text is not a confirmation of anything.  It's already well established (confirmed) that Oswald was a liar. Hosty was merely recording some of Oswald's lies.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on February 11, 2019, 09:57:29 PM
The highlighted text is not a confirmation of anything.  It's already well established (confirmed) that Oswald was a liar. Hosty was merely recording some of Oswald's lies.

Tim,

Well put.

--Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2019, 10:00:28 PM
The highlighted text is not a confirmation of anything.  It's already well established (confirmed) that Oswald was a liar. Hosty was merely recording some of Oswald's lies.

Aha! 'Hosty was merely recording some of Oswald's lies'. So you accept that Agent Hosty's note accurately reflects what the evil Mr Oswald had been claiming. This means you now accept that the evil Mr Oswald did in fact claim to have been out front after all.

Good on you, Mr Nickerson-------you're making progress  Thumb1:

Now! Let's look at the evil Mr Oswald's 'lies', shall we?

1. I visited the 2nd floor lunchroom before the assassination.

Question! Were Carolyn Arnold and Sarah Stanton privy to the Hosty note that Bart Kamp has just uncovered?

2. I went out front to watch the motorcade.

Question! Why did Messrs Hosty, Bookhout, Fritz & co. suppress this 'lie' in their official reports and testimony?

Thanking you in advance for your reply, Mr Nickerson  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2019, 10:15:58 PM
Friends, here's Officer Marrion L. Baker's first-day affidavit:

(https://i.imgur.com/wZvG7AO.gif)

The underlined sentences tell us what happened, viz.---------------
A) Officer Baker rushed up the steps
B) He saw several people standing around, one of whom was Mr Oswald
C) Just as he was asking Mr Oswald if he worked there (= because he needed someone familiar with the place to show him to the stairs),
D) Mr Truly stepped up and offered to show Officer Baker the way.

No lunchroom encounter!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 11, 2019, 10:56:44 PM

A) Officer Baker rushed up the steps
B) He saw several people standing around, one of whom was Mr Oswald
C) Just as he was asking Mr Oswald if he worked there (= because he needed someone familiar with the place to show him to the stairs),
D) Mr Truly stepped up and offered to show Officer Baker the way.

No lunchroom encounter!

Now! It just so happens that the initial police line fed to the media was that Mr Oswald had been 'stopped' by a police officer at the front entrance.

And then! The line changed the following day to reflect the fact that a fictional 2nd floor lunchroom incident had been developed as a way of moving the real Oswald-Baker-Truly encounter away from the front entrance.

It worked! Oswald was deprived of his alibi, and conveniently lost his life before he had a chance to give his side in court.

Wanna know the most incredible part of this whole sorry saga? Even today it is actually possible to find 'researchers' who still believe the ridiculous lunchroom story! And only some of them are Lone Nutters, of whom it would be unfair to expect any better... ::)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 11, 2019, 11:01:27 PM
Aha! 'Hosty was merely recording some of Oswald's lies'. So you accept that Agent Hosty's note accurately reflects what the evil Mr Oswald had been claiming. This means you now accept that the evil Mr Oswald did in fact claim to have been out front after all.

Good on you, Mr Nickerson-------you're making progress  Thumb1:

Yes, I do accept that. I also accept that Oswald claimed to have eaten his lunch with Junior Jarman and Harold Norman. I also accept that Oswald claimed to have been on the second floor at the time of the search of the building, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked if he worked there. I also accept that Oswald claimed that when he went downstairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that 'he is one of our employees'. Do you accept all of those?  If not, why not?

Quote
Now! Let's look at the evil Mr Oswald's 'lies', shall we?

1. I visited the 2nd floor lunchroom before the assassination.

Question! Were Carolyn Arnold and Sarah Stanton privy to the Hosty note that Bart Kamp has just uncovered?

I don't know. I doubt it. Should they have been?

Quote
2. I went out front to watch the motorcade.

Question! Why did Messrs Hosty, Bookhout, Fritz & co. suppress this 'lie' in their official reports and testimony?

That's in the Hosty notes, is it? What Oswald said wasn't suppressed. Bookhout recorded it in one of his FD-302s when he wrote that Oswald went out to hang with Bill Shelley for five or ten minutes.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 11, 2019, 11:18:09 PM
Friends, here's Officer Marrion L. Baker's first-day affidavit:

(https://i.imgur.com/wZvG7AO.gif)

The underlined sentences tell us what happened, viz.---------------
A) Officer Baker rushed up the steps


Try reading the whole thing. Then when you're done that, read the following:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340660/m1/1/

And then read the signed affidavit of Jeraldean Reid:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0121a.jpg
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2019, 12:18:32 AM
Yes, I do accept that. I also accept that Oswald claimed to have eaten his lunch with Junior Jarman and Harold Norman. I also accept that Oswald claimed to have been on the second floor at the time of the search of the building, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked if he worked there. I also accept that Oswald claimed that when he went downstairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that 'he is one of our employees'. Do you accept all of those?  If not, why not?

I don't know. I doubt it. Should they have been?

That's in the Hosty notes, is it? What Oswald said wasn't suppressed. Bookhout recorded it in one of his FD-302s when he wrote that Oswald went out to hang with Bill Shelley for five or ten minutes.

Thank you for your ample response, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:

1. Mr Oswald saw Messrs Jarman and Norman 'c(o)me in'. Captain Fritz, being Captain Fritz, inflated that into a claim he'd had lunch with them!
2. Mr Oswald never claimed to have been on the second floor at any time after the assassination. Bookhout has scrambled the chronology!
3. Mr Harry D. Holmes is quite right: Mr Oswald claimed--consistently--to have had an exchange with a police officer at the front entrance!
4. Dontcha find it a rather curious koinkydink that Ms Arnold and Ms Stanton both claimed to have seen something directly corroborative of Mr Oswald's suppressed claim, viz., a pre-assassination visit to the 2nd floor lunchroom?
5. Bookhout has clearly changed the timeframe of Mr Oswald's claimed move out front. Hosty makes this abundantly clear: 'for the P. parade'. Bookhout's twisted version is a joke, as is anyone who falls for it!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2019, 12:22:41 AM
Try reading the whole thing.

The bit about catching a man walking away from the stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor?  :D

Quote
Then when you're done that, read the following:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340660/m1/1/

And then read the signed affidavit of Jeraldean Reid:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0121a.jpg

Mr Truly lied.
Mrs Reid, at the behest of her boss Mr Truly, lied.

The Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter happened at the front door.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2019, 01:05:11 AM
Now! It just so happens that the initial police line fed to the media was that Mr Oswald had been 'stopped' by a police officer at the front entrance.

And then! The line changed the following day to reflect the fact that a fictional 2nd floor lunchroom incident had been developed as a way of moving the real Oswald-Baker-Truly encounter away from the front entrance.

It worked! Oswald was deprived of his alibi, and conveniently lost his life before he had a chance to give his side in court.

Wanna know the most incredible part of this whole sorry saga? Even today it is actually possible to find 'researchers' who still believe the ridiculous lunchroom story! And only some of them are Lone Nutters, of whom it would be unfair to expect any better... ::)

Now!

There is an unidentified figure standing alone on the west side of the Depository entrance. This figure shows up both in the Wiegman film (= during the shooting) and in the Darnell film (=just after the shooting).

It has been established that this figure cannot possibly be any of the Depository employees known to have been standing in the doorway at the time of the shooting. Every single one of them has been ruled out. Not even the most frantic of efforts has gotten anywhere.

Up to now, the suggestion that this figure can therefore only be Mr Oswald has been met with a cry of, 'We have absolutely no reason to believe that Oswald was in that doorway. Not even Oswald himself said he was there!'

That cry has just been rendered null and void by 7 devastatingly unambiguous words in the Hosty note: 'Then went outside to watch P. Parade.'

Mr Oswald puts himself in the front doorway at the critical time, and so too do the Wiegman and Darnell films. He is Prayer Man.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on February 12, 2019, 01:20:34 AM
Now!

There is an unidentified figure standing alone on the west side of the Depository entrance. This figure shows up both in the Wiegman film (= during the shooting) and in the Darnell film (=just after the shooting).

It has been established that this figure cannot possibly be any of the Depository employees known to have been standing in the doorway at the time of the shooting. Every single one of them has been ruled out. Not even the most frantic of efforts has gotten anywhere.

Up to now, the suggestion that this figure can therefore only be Mr Oswald has been met with a cry of, 'We have absolutely no reason to believe that Oswald was in that doorway. Not even Oswald himself said he was there!'

That cry has just been rendered null and void by 7 devastatingly unambiguous words in the Hosty note: 'Then went outside to watch P. Parade.'

Mr Oswald puts himself in the front doorway at the critical time, and so too do the Wiegman and Darnell films. He is Prayer Man.

Dear Alan,

Just because that's what he said he did doesn't mean that's what he did.

Oswald was 5' 9.5" tall.

The only way he was Prayer Man in the photographic images is if he was standing with one foot on the top step, and with the other foot on the "landing," and even that doesn't  work very well.

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2019, 01:29:56 AM
Dear Alan,

Just because that's what he said he did doesn't mean that's what he did.

Like I say, the goalposts have shifted in response to this revelation!

Here's the point: if that's what Mr Oswald said, then it proves that Fritz and co. lied about what he said.

Now ask yourself the question: why would they lie if Mr Oswald's claimed alibi had nothing to it?

Quote
Oswald was 5' 9.5" tall.

The only way he was Prayer Man in the photographic images is if he was standing with one foot on the top step, and with the other foot on the "landing," and even that doesn't  work very well.

Why doesn't it work very well? :-\
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on February 12, 2019, 01:51:03 AM
Like I say, the goalposts have shifted in response to this revelation!

Here's the point: if that's what Mr Oswald said, then it proves that Fritz and co. lied about what he said.

Now ask yourself the question: why would they lie if Mr Oswald's claimed alibi had nothing to it?

Why doesn't it work very well? :-\

Dear Alan,

1) If Oswald wasn't Prayer Person, how exactly did "Fritz and Co." lie about what Oswald said?

2) His standing like that would necessitate spaying his legs out at awkward angles, and bending his "uphill" knee uncomfortably and holding it like that for about 30 seconds.  Also, he wouldn't have been able to pivot his body the way Prayer Person evidently did at some point between the end of the Wiegman clip and the beginning of the Darnell clip.

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 12, 2019, 04:55:50 AM
Thank you for your ample response, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:

1. Mr Oswald saw Messrs Jarman and Norman 'c(o)me in'. Captain Fritz, being Captain Fritz, inflated that into a claim he'd had lunch with them!

Fritz inflated it , did he? Ah, if only it were that easy for you. Sorry, but Fritz wasn't the only one to report that Oswald claimed to have ate his lunch with Jarman and Norman. Secret Service Agent Thomas Kelley also heard him say it. Kelley also asked him if he had viewed the parade and he said he had not.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29105#relPageId=1&tab=page

Quote
2. Mr Oswald never claimed to have been on the second floor at any time after the assassination. Bookhout has scrambled the chronology!

Hah! How do you know that Bookhout scrambled the chronology?

Quote
3. Mr Harry D. Holmes is quite right: Mr Oswald claimed--consistently--to have had an exchange with a police officer at the front entrance!

Holmes was right? So, Oswald was upstairs when the shooting took place after all? Well, that was easy.

Quote
4. Dontcha find it a rather curious koinkydink that Ms Arnold and Ms Stanton both claimed to have seen something directly corroborative of Mr Oswald's suppressed claim, viz., a pre-assassination visit to the 2nd floor lunchroom?

What are you talking about? Carolyn Arnold thought that she caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse. She wasn't sure that it was Oswald and that it was a few minutes before 12:15. How could that in any way be corroborative of Oswald's "suppressed claim"?

Sarah Stanton never saw Oswald at all that day.

"I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time or at any time during that day." -- From the signed sworn affidavit of Sarah Stanton, March 18,1964

How was it that she could have corroborated Oswald's "suppressed claim"?

Quote
5. Bookhout has clearly changed the timeframe of Mr Oswald's claimed move out front. Hosty makes this abundantly clear: 'for the P. parade'. Bookhout's twisted version is a joke, as is anyone who falls for it!

How exactly does 'for the P. Parade' show that Bookhout changed the timeframe?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 12, 2019, 05:00:07 AM
The bit about catching a man walking away from the stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor?  :D

Yeah, that bit.

Quote
Mr Truly lied.
Mrs Reid, at the behest of her boss Mr Truly, lied.

The Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter happened at the front door.  Thumb1:

Like I said, if you want to see a real zealot, look in the mirror.

Everyone who made statements that conflict with your Prayer Man narrative lied? Several of them under oath? How many were there anyway? Let's make a list , shall we?

1) Marion Baker DPD

2) Roy Truly TSBD forman

3) Jeraldean Reid( AKA Mrs. Robert Reid TSBD employee

4) Will Fritz (DPD) Recorded (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29104#relPageId=2&tab=page) "I asked Oswald where he was when the Police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in."

5) James Bookhout (FBI) -  "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dalls polie 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"

That's five. Anyone else?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2019, 08:53:38 AM
Dear Alan,

1) If Oswald wasn't Prayer Person, how exactly did "Fritz and Co." lie about what Oswald said?

2) His standing like that would necessitate spaying his legs out at awkward angles, and bending his "uphill" knee uncomfortably and holding it like that for about 30 seconds.  Also, he wouldn't have been able to pivot his body the way Prayer Person evidently did at some point between the end of the Wiegman clip and the beginning of the Darnell clip.

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

Answer to 1)!: They suppressed from all reports and testimony the supremely important fact that Mr Oswald had claimed to have gone out to watch the parade.

Answer to 2)!: Don't be silly, Mr Graves. That's only one of several possible postures-------do your homework, man, and read the earlier parts of this thread!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2019, 09:15:23 AM
Fritz inflated it , did he? Ah, if only it were that easy for you. Sorry, but Fritz wasn't the only one to report that Oswald claimed to have ate his lunch with Jarman and Norman. Secret Service Agent Thomas Kelley also heard him say it. Kelley also asked him if he had viewed the parade and he said he had not.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29105#relPageId=1&tab=page

Hah! How do you know that Bookhout scrambled the chronology?

Holmes was right? So, Oswald was upstairs when the shooting took place after all? Well, that was easy.

What are you talking about? Carolyn Arnold thought that she caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse. She wasn't sure that it was Oswald and that it was a few minutes before 12:15. How could that in any way be corroborative of Oswald's "suppressed claim"?

Sarah Stanton never saw Oswald at all that day.

"I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time or at any time during that day." -- From the signed sworn affidavit of Sarah Stanton, March 18,1964

How was it that she could have corroborated Oswald's "suppressed claim"?

How exactly does 'for the P. Parade' show that Bookhout changed the timeframe?

1) Kelley, like Fritz and Bookhout and Hosty, lied. The Hosty note proves it. It's called a cover-up. Cover-ups tend to convince gullible souls like you!

2) We know Bookhout scrambled the chronology of what Mr Oswald said because Hosty tells us Mr Oswald said he went "outside to watch P. Parade" after his visit to the 2nd floor lunchroom. Note that Hosty doesn't write "Then went out front." or "Then went outside to see what happening." No! He makes it plain as plain can be by using the words watch and parade. Those two words bring your little house of cards down!

3) No, Mr Holmes compressed Mr Oswald's account: working upstairs--broke for lunch--downstairs to 2 for coke--downstairs to 1--cop encounter at front entrance. Thankfully, Hosty's note now tells us exactly what Mr Oswald said!

4) Ms Arnold told FBI about seeing Mr Oswald in 2nd floor lunchroom before assassination. They changed her story without telling her. It's called a cover-up. Cover-ups tend to convince gullible souls like you! Ms Stanton's sighting of Mr Oswald came to light last year: she didn't want trouble, so said nothing at the time. And now here we have proof that Mr Oswald claimed a pre-12:30 visit to the lunchroom. His claim chimes perfectly with Ms Arnold and Ms Stanton. Funny, that! But you won't accept the link because it's too painful to do. We understand, Mr Nickerson, truly we do!

5) See #2!  And look up the words watch and Parade in a dictionary! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2019, 09:20:54 AM
Yeah, that bit.

Like I said, if you want to see a real zealot, look in the mirror.

Everyone who made statements that conflict with your Prayer Man narrative lied? Several of them under oath? How many were there anyway? Let's make a list , shall we?

1) Marion Baker DPD

2) Roy Truly TSBD forman

3) Jeraldean Reid( AKA Mrs. Robert Reid TSBD employee

4) Will Fritz (DPD) Recorded (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29104#relPageId=2&tab=page) "I asked Oswald where he was when the Police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in."

5) James Bookhout (FBI) -  "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dalls polie 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"

That's five. Anyone else?

It's not a matter of opinion that all the interrogation reports and related testimonies lied about Mr Oswald's claimed whereabouts. The Hosty note has just proved it.

Add Hosty to the list, by the way. In Assignment Oswald he pretends Mr Oswald claimed to be in the domino room at the time of the P. Parade  ::)

But by all means continue along on your Gullible's Travels, Mr Nickerson! You're giving us a good laugh Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on February 12, 2019, 12:54:45 PM
Answer to 1)!: They suppressed from all reports and testimony the supremely important fact that Mr Oswald had claimed to have gone out to watch the parade.

Answer to 2)!: Don't be silly, Mr Graves. That's only one of several possible postures-------do your homework, man, and read the earlier parts of this thread!  Thumb1:

Dear Alan,

I guess you didn't follow Stancak's highly creative attempts at the EF to create a 3-D model in which Prayer Person could be "proved" to be 5' 9" inches tall, you know, just like that nice young man, Lee Harvey Oswald!

(Who was 5' 9.5", btw, and whose right leg was not three inches longer than his left).

Talk about standing unnaturally and uncomfortably!

Wowie Zowie!

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 12, 2019, 07:48:43 PM
Kelley, like Fritz and Bookhout and Hosty, lied.

Ms Arnold told FBI about seeing Mr Oswald in 2nd floor lunchroom before assassination. They changed her story without telling her.
 
Ms Stanton's sighting of Mr Oswald came to light last year: she didn't want trouble, so said nothing at the time.

Ok, here is the list as it currently stands:

Liars ,and and even perjurers , according to Alan Ford

1.  Marion Baker
2.  Roy Truly
3.  Jeraldean Reid (AKA Mrs. Robert Reid)
4.  Will Fritz
5.  James Bookhout
6.  James Hosty
7.  Thomas Kelley
8.  Sarah Stanton
9.  Richard E. Harrison (The FBI agent who interviewed Carolyn Arnold on 11/26/63
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 12, 2019, 07:54:33 PM
Ok, here is the list as it currently stands:

Liars ,and and even perjurers , according to Alan Ford

1.  Marion Baker
2.  Roy Truly
3.  Jeraldean Reid (AKA Mrs. Robert Reid)
4.  Will Fritz
5.  James Bookhout
6.  James Hosty
7.  Thomas Kelley
8.  Sarah Stanton
9.  Richard E. Harrison (The FBI agent who interviewed Carolyn Arnold on 11/26/63

Where did Sarah Stanton lie?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2019, 10:43:49 PM
Dear Alan,

So, you admit that Stancak's modeling was unsuccessful.

Good!

Now, what other postures for 5' 9.5" Oswald do you propose that might "work" better in Stancak's desperate modeling attempt to prove Oswald innocent?

Slouching against the wall in order to reduce his height by five or six inches?

Kneeling?

(LOL)

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

Mr Stancak got an awful lot right, and-----------unlike the rather hysterical anti-PrayerMan goons-----------has contributed materially to our understanding of what's in that doorway! Thumb1:

Mr Oswald/Prayer Man: one step down (look at the distance between his left elbow and the front column!). He may be pivoted south-east, have his left knee bent back, allowing his left foot to rest on the landing behind him. Alternatively, he may simply be facing forward with his arms folded. (I am talking about Darnell here, not Wiegman NNB!)

What he is not is an obese woman with white hair wearing a male-pattern-receding wig whilst simultaneously standing by the west wall and standing to Mr Frazier's left!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 12, 2019, 10:55:48 PM
Ok, here is the list as it currently stands:

Liars ,and and even perjurers , according to Alan Ford

1.  Marion Baker
2.  Roy Truly
3.  Jeraldean Reid (AKA Mrs. Robert Reid)
4.  Will Fritz
5.  James Bookhout
6.  James Hosty
7.  Thomas Kelley
8.  Sarah Stanton
9.  Richard E. Harrison (The FBI agent who interviewed Carolyn Arnold on 11/26/63

Mr Nickerson thinks a cover-up is unthinkable, just unthinkable. That's because Mr Nickerson is a very gullible person.

Incidentally, it was Carolyn Johnson (nee Arnold) who accused the FBI of lying about what she told them. I believe her. And I believe Sarah Stanton.

I also believe that Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz that he 'went outside to watch P. Parade', and that Captain Fritz and co. kept this extremely important fact from the public record for a very good reason, to wit: Mr Oswald's claim was true.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2019, 12:19:37 AM
Friends! The reason the anti-PrayerMan zealots are so upset is very simple. The revelation a few days ago of this note written by James Hosty-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/Al8yyot.jpg)

-----------has cruelly deprived them of their very last line of defence.

The matter now comes down to the following:

The person standing by the west wall of a Depository entranceway that is full of Depository employees-----------

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

-----------is either

A) a Depository employee a) whose location at this time is uniquely unaccounted for; b) who will later claim to have been here; c) who looks strikingly like Prayer Man
or
B) a random person from off the street who is the sole non-Depository employee in that entranceway yet whose presence goes completely unnoticed.

To choose B) over A) would be to choose utter irrationality over plain common sense.

The Lone Nutter zealots will of course do what they always do: go into red-faced denial mode; the carnival barkers who believe in 2 Oswalds, etc. will go into purple-faced denial mode.

But who cares? They have lost the argument. There is now no good argument against Prayer Man's being Mr Oswald, and plenty of excellent arguments for his being Mr Oswald. Even more to the point, there remains no viable alternative candidate for Prayer Man.

An historic week for JFK assassination research!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 13, 2019, 12:32:51 AM
As explained by her daughter-in-law and granddaughter, she didn't want to get drawn into the 'investigation'. Can't say I blame her.

How did Ms Arnold and Ms Stanton manage to make a claim that chimes perfectly with something that Mr Oswald claimed in custody------without anyone in the outside world knowing (until a few days ago) that he had made such a claim?

Remarkable fluke!

Mrs Stanton never made that claim.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 13, 2019, 01:04:53 AM
Friends! The reason the anti-PrayerMan zealots are so upset is very simple. The revelation a few days ago of this note written by James Hosty-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/Al8yyot.jpg)

-----------has cruelly deprived them of their very last line of defence.

The matter now comes down to the following:

The person standing by the west wall of a Depository entranceway that is full of Depository employees-----------

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

-----------is either

A) a Depository employee a) whose location at this time is uniquely unaccounted for; b) who will later claim to have been here; c) who looks strikingly like Prayer Man
or
B) a random person from off the street who is the sole non-Depository employee in that entranceway yet whose presence goes completely unnoticed.

To choose B) over A) would be to choose utter irrationality over plain common sense.

The Lone Nutter zealots will of course do what they always do: go into red-faced denial mode; the carnival barkers who believe in 2 Oswalds, etc. will go into purple-faced denial mode.

But who cares? They have lost the argument. There is now no good argument against Prayer Man's being Mr Oswald, and plenty of excellent arguments for his being Mr Oswald. Even more to the point, there remains no viable alternative candidate for Prayer Man.

An historic week for JFK assassination research!  Thumb1:

Alan, you have a Cinque-like aura about you. Are you two related by any chance?

Actually, the "Billy Lovelady was really Oswald" bunch and the Prayer Man loons are a lot alike.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2019, 01:07:25 AM
Now!

The Hosty note gives us Mr Oswald's claim as to his whereabouts at the time of the assassination: "Then went outside to watch P. Parade".

We can add this to Mr Oswald's other known claim as to his whereabouts:

REPORTER: Were you in the building at the time?
LHO: Naturally if I work in that building, yes, sir.


There is only one place that can be meaningfully described as both "outside" and "in the building": front entranceway.

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2019, 01:09:56 AM
Alan, you have a Cinque-like aura about you. Are you two related by any chance?

Actually, the "Billy Lovelady was really Oswald" bunch and the Prayer Man loons are a lot alike.

 :D

It's dawning on gullible Mr Nickerson that he's spent all these years energetically and vociferously backing the wrong horse. Gotta hurt!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 13, 2019, 06:06:42 AM
Now!

The Hosty note gives us Mr Oswald's claim as to his whereabouts at the time of the assassination: "Then went outside to watch P. Parade".

We can add this to Mr Oswald's other known claim as to his whereabouts:

REPORTER: Were you in the building at the time?
LHO: Naturally if I work in that building, yes, sir.


There is only one place that can be meaningfully described as both "outside" and "in the building": front entranceway.

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

Thumb1:



The "hasty" note by Hosty may be newly discovered, and thats something to consider, i agree, but absent a plausible explanation for Prayer Person to be almost a head lower than BW Frazier, remains a critical thorn in this theory.


Also, if Baker and Truly had a conversation WITH Oswald ON the front entrance landing, RIGHT IN FRONT of BW Frazier and  Joe Molina and a few others, it  seems highly improbable they could ALL have missed that particular detail.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2019, 08:04:44 AM
absent a plausible explanation for Prayer Person to be almost a head lower than BW Frazier, remains a critical thorn in this theory.

Prayer Man is not on the landing!

Quote
Also, if Baker and Truly had a conversation WITH Oswald ON the front entrance landing, RIGHT IN FRONT of BW Frazier and  Joe Molina and a few others, it  seems highly improbable they could ALL have missed that particular detail.

Well, Messrs. Frazier and Molina claimed not to have even noticed Baker--a uniformed officer in a white helmet--tearing up the steps and into the building. It seems highly improbable they-----or at least Frazier-----could have missed that particular detail. Yet that's what we're supposed to believe...

Incidentally, the Oswald-Baker encounter (just a few hurried words from Baker, actually: 'Do you work here?') may well have happened just inside the front door. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes clearly remembers Mr Oswald's having used the word "vestibule".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2019, 07:15:18 PM
Friends, I've been reading back through the momentous "Oswald Leaving TSBD?" thread at the Education Forum!

On 21 August 2013, Mr Sean Murphy wrote the following:

Carolyn Arnold insisted--to Anthony Summers, Earl Golz, Gary Mack and others--that she spotted Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom several minutes before the assassination.

Now put the case that Arnold's claim is true and then read the following section of FBI agents Bookhout & Hosty's co-written first interrogation report (11/22/63):

"Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; 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."

The startling possibility arises that Bookhout and Hosty are giving Oswald's three claims in simple chronological sequence:

    I went to lunch in the domino room
    Then I went up to the second-floor lunchroom and bought a coke
    Then I went back down to the first floor, which is where I was when the President passed the building

Claim 1 comes with a precise location--the domino room--and is supported by Oswald's noticing two black co-workers passing through (i.e. Norman & Jarman coming in the back entrance of the first floor and proceeding across to the freight elevator)

Claim 2 comes with a precise location--the second-floor lunchroom--and is supported by Carolyn Arnold's recollection

Claim 3 comes without any precise location, a fact which just may be explained by the utterly calamitous location of the Prayer Man figure in Wiegman & Darnell.

Did Lee Oswald offer Will Fritz a very precisely localised Claim 3 and were the details of this alibi-sealing claim suppressed?



Mr Murphy's question was answered this week with a resounding Yes:

(https://i.imgur.com/Al8yyot.jpg)

Murphy nailed it Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2019, 08:21:09 PM
Now! Most of the attention these past few days has for obvious reasons focused on the bit about Mr Oswald going "outside to watch P. Parade".

But! The bit before that-------"He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch"-------is in its own way just as significant. Why, oh why, I hear you ask!

Simple----------it kills dead the notion that Mr Oswald himself confirmed the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter with Officer Baker.

Think about it, friends! The Hosty note makes it plainer than plainest day that Mr Oswald's claim per the Bookhout solo-run report------------

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 form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there.

------------is a claim that Mr Oswald never made!

Think about it! For Mr Oswald to have said this would amount to the following piece of gibberish:

OSWALD: "At the time of the search of the building by police officers I was on the second floor, having just purchased a Coca Cola from the machine. A police officer came in but my boss told him I was alright. Then I brought the coke back down to the first floor to eat my lunch."
FRITZ: "OK, what did you do next?"
OSWALD: "Then I went outside to watch the Presidential parade."

Went outside to watch the Presidential Parade------Parade!! not 'excitement' or 'commotion', but Parade!!--------after being challenged by a police officer with pistol drawn???

  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 13, 2019, 10:16:09 PM
Friends, I've been reading back through the momentous "Oswald Leaving TSBD?" thread at the Education Forum!

On 21 August 2013, Mr Sean Murphy wrote the following:

Carolyn Arnold insisted--to Anthony Summers, Earl Golz, Gary Mack and others--that she spotted Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom several minutes before the assassination.

Murphy nailed it Thumb1:

About a quarter of an hour before the assassination, she said in 1978, "I went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment..."--Not In Your Lifetime, By Anthony Summers, pg 92.

Murphy nailed it, did he?  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2019, 10:38:29 PM
The sudden frequency with which Mr Nickerson has been posting on this thread over the last few days tells us how completely unconcerned he is about this latest development.

We look forward with breathless excitement to Chapter 67 of Gullible's Travels. Should be up within the next few minutes, folks! :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 13, 2019, 10:44:23 PM
The sudden frequency with which Mr Nickerson has been posting on this thread over the last few days tells us how completely unconcerned he is about this latest development.

We look forward with breathless excitement to Chapter 67 of Gullible's Travels. Should be up within the next few minutes, folks! :D

Yes, it's been keeping awake at night.  :(  Whatever shall I do? Maybe I should start drinking again. Do you think that'll help?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2019, 10:48:54 PM
Friends, the fact that the alleged Arnold & Stanton sighting of Mr Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom before the P. Parade tells the same story that the Hosty note has Mr Oswald tell is of no moment. It was either one of those super-lucky guesses that happen all the time to sociopathic fantasists, or the two ladies simply got the necessary information directly from Mr Oswald's ghost by attending a local seance. Nothing to see here!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2019, 10:49:57 PM
Yes, it's been keeping awake at night.  :(  Whatever shall I do? Maybe I should start drinking again. Do you think that'll help?

Congratulations on your sobriety, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 13, 2019, 11:24:58 PM
Friends, what makes Mr Kamp's discovery of the Hosty note so historic is that it allows Mr Oswald to tell us his side of the story for the first time.

Shouldn't we at least listen carefully to what he's saying?

He tells a very straightforward story:
----------------I went downstairs to the 1st floor for lunch
----------------I went up to the 2nd floor and bought a coke
----------------I returned to the 1st floor to finish lunch
----------------I then went outside to watch the Presidential parade.

Let's forget Prayer Man for a moment. I simply put three questions to all those good, sincere, truth-seeking people following this discussion who
----------------do not believe Mr Oswald shot President Kennedy
----------------do believe he encountered Officer Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom after the shooting
----------------do not believe he went out front to watch the Presidential parade.

1. Why do you not want to believe what Mr Oswald is claiming?
2. What grounds do you think he has for pretending to have been out front when he knows his claim will be contradicted by everyone who was there?
3. What grounds do you think he has for pretending that a not-in-itself-incriminating incident in the 2nd floor lunchroom that he knows his boss and a DPD officer are going to vouch for anyway never happened?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 14, 2019, 12:22:31 AM
Buell certainly said that Oswald left by the rear entrance (in the 2002 C-Span interview which is readily available online). Some people here would call you a fabricator rather than revisit that interview.

Wrong.  Frazier never claimed to see him come out the rear door.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 14, 2019, 03:03:57 AM
Congratulations on your sobriety, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:

Bah! Sobriety is overrated.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2019, 08:33:03 PM
Friends!

Imagine there were no PrayerMan figure standing on the west side of the entranceway in the Darnell and Wiegman films. Imagine just an empty, person-less space there.

Now! Imagine further that the Hosty note comes to light. Eyebrows are raised, but the consensus line amongst seasoned researchers is, 'Okay, but Oswald was clearly lying about going out front to watch the parade. There's nowhere in that entranceway he can be! He's not in Altgens! And it's just too crowded over on the east side!'

Valid grounds for disbelieving Mr Oswald's claim? Sure.

But! That is not where we are in reality. There is a figure on the west side of that entranceway. This figure strikes many, many people as bearing a striking resemblance to Mr Oswald.

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

Something very simple follows from the above:

To say that Prayer Man is not Mr Oswald is to say----------by implication-----------that he lied about going "outside to watch the P. Parade".

For there's really nowhere else Mr Oswald could be that is at once "outside" and "in the building" (i.e. the roofed entranceway).

Just as there is no other viable candidate than Mr Oswald for Prayer Man, so there is no other viable candidate than Prayer Man for Mr Oswald!

And to say that Mr Oswald's claim to have been out front is a lie is to leave wholly unaccounted for the established fact that Captain Fritz and co. lied by omission about Mr Oswald's precise claim as to his whereabouts during the motorcade.

Is it not much simpler to accept the obvious implication of Captain Fritz and co.'s lie-by-omission, to wit: Captain Fritz and co. knew that Mr Oswald had a sound alibi and conspired to bury it?

Once one accepts this simple proposition, all the anomalies and absurdities go up in a puff of smoke. The thing makes sense for the first time in 55 years.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2019, 09:04:00 PM
Mr Lovelady in the Hughes film.

(https://i.imgur.com/isJdAHB.gif)

Behind him can be seen a figure in the Prayer Man spot.

I believe the figure just to Prayer Man's left is... Mr Bill Shelley.

'Out with Bill Shell[e]y in front'

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2019, 10:39:00 PM
Mr Lovelady in the Hughes film.

(https://i.imgur.com/isJdAHB.gif)

Behind him can be seen a figure in the Prayer Man spot.

I believe the figure just to Prayer Man's left is... Mr Bill Shelley.

'Out with Bill Shell[e]y in front'

If these IDs of the people in the Altgens photo and Wiegman film are sound (apart, of course, from Ms Stanton, whom we know to be to Mr Frazier's left at this time)-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/l4wIM0m.jpg)

-------------then we can understand that, between Hughes and Wiegman,
A) Mr Lovelady, order to follow the motorcade down Elm St, has stepped back to a higher level and near the centre of the stairway
B) Mr Shelley, in reaction to Mr Lovelady's movement and/or in order to follow the motorcade down Elm St, has stepped back to a higher level and a little further east.

Prayer Man (Mr Oswald) remains in the same position from Hughes to Wiegman.

From Wiegman to Darnell, he will remain in the same spot, though his posture may well change:

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 14, 2019, 11:32:29 PM
If these IDs of the people in the Altgens photo and Wiegman film are sound (apart, of course, from Ms Stanton, whom we know to be to Mr Frazier's left at this time)-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/l4wIM0m.jpg)

-------------then we can understand that, between Hughes and Wiegman,
A) Mr Lovelady, order to follow the motorcade down Elm St, has stepped back to a higher level and near the centre of the stairway
B) Mr Shelley, in reaction to Mr Lovelady's movement and/or in order to follow the motorcade down Elm St, has stepped back to a higher level and a little further east.

Prayer Man (Mr Oswald) remains in the same position from Hughes to Wiegman.

From Wiegman to Darnell, he will remain in the same spot, though his posture may well change:

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

Thumb1:

Now! What happens next?

Let's hand over to Mr James Jarman (HSCA interview 9.25.77):

JARMAN: Well, there was a Billy Lovelady standing out there, he was on the steps, see.
INTERVIEWER: Oh.
JARMAN: And, Oswald was coming out the door and he said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the building, Billy Lovelady said that Mr. Truly told the policeman that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on down the stairs.


If that's Mr Lovelady near the bottom west of the steps in Darnell, then we can work out the sequence of events:

-------Officer Baker rushes past Mr Lovelady and up the steps
-------Mr Lovelady turns around to look up after him
-------He sees the police officer grabbing hold of Mr Oswald (whom Mr Lovelady notices now for the first time) and pulling him into the vestibule, shouting, 'Do you work here?'
-------Mr Lovelady misunderstands the encounter------Mr Oswald is not 'coming out the door', he's been there all along!; and all Officer Baker is doing is seeking assistance from the first man he can grab
-------Mr Truly, meanwhile, has followed Officer Baker up the steps... he offers to give the police officer the assistance he is seeking ('Yes he works here, officer, but I'm the building manager, I'll help you').

Now!

Mr Lovelady's mistaken interpretation of this exchange between Mr Oswald and Officer Baker-----------i.e. he thinks the officer has aggressively 'stopped' Mr Oswald from leaving the building and Mr Truly has stepped in to vouch for his employee------------is exactly the story that DPD will be telling the press about later this day:

Oswald was stopped by one of our officers as he tried to leave the building, but the officer, who was rushing into the building, let him go when the building manager told him Oswald worked there.

Friends, the coincidence between Mr Jarman's account and the first-day DPD line is no coincidence at all!

---------------> Mr Oswald went out to watch the Presidential Parade.
---------------> He was standing beside Mr Shelley as the President was passing.
---------------> Just after the shooting, a police officer did come running in to the 1st floor, grabbing Mr Oswald and pulling him into the vestibule.

This is the real 'lunchroom incident', and Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz all about it!

Thumb1:


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 15, 2019, 02:44:48 AM
Now! What happens next?

Let's hand over to Mr James Jarman (HSCA interview 9.25.77):

JARMAN: Well, there was a Billy Lovelady standing out there, he was on the steps, see.
INTERVIEWER: Oh.
JARMAN: And, Oswald was coming out the door and he said the police had stopped Oswald and sent him back in the building, Billy Lovelady said that Mr. Truly told the policeman that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on down the stairs.


If that's Mr Lovelady near the bottom west of the steps in Darnell, then we can work out the sequence of events:

-------Officer Baker rushes past Mr Lovelady and up the steps
-------Mr Lovelady turns around to look up after him
-------He sees the police officer grabbing hold of Mr Oswald (whom Mr Lovelady notices now for the first time) and pulling him into the vestibule, shouting, 'Do you work here?'
-------Mr Lovelady misunderstands the encounter------Mr Oswald is not 'coming out the door', he's been there all along!; and all Officer Baker is doing is seeking assistance from the first man he can grab
-------Mr Truly, meanwhile, has followed Officer Baker up the steps... he offers to give the police officer the assistance he is seeking ('Yes he works here, officer, but I'm the building manager, I'll help you').

Now!

Mr Lovelady's mistaken interpretation of this exchange between Mr Oswald and Officer Baker-----------i.e. he thinks the officer has aggressively 'stopped' Mr Oswald from leaving the building and Mr Truly has stepped in to vouch for his employee------------is exactly the story that DPD will be telling the press about later this day:

Oswald was stopped by one of our officers as he tried to leave the building, but the officer, who was rushing into the building, let him go when the building manager told him Oswald worked there.

Friends, the coincidence between Mr Jarman's account and the first-day DPD line is no coincidence at all!

---------------> Mr Oswald went out to watch the Presidential Parade.
---------------> He was standing beside Mr Shelley as the President was passing.
---------------> Just after the shooting, a police officer did come running in to the 1st floor, grabbing Mr Oswald and pulling him into the vestibule.

This is the real 'lunchroom incident', and Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz all about it!

Thumb1:

"B" is not Otis Williams. "E" is Otis Williams.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on February 15, 2019, 03:27:00 AM
If these IDs of the people in the Altgens photo and Wiegman film are sound (apart, of course, from Ms Stanton, whom we know to be to Mr Frazier's left at this time)-------------

(https://i.imgur.com/l4wIM0m.jpg)

-------------then we can understand that, between Hughes and Wiegman,
A) Mr Lovelady, order to follow the motorcade down Elm St, has stepped back to a higher level and near the centre of the stairway
B) Mr Shelley, in reaction to Mr Lovelady's movement and/or in order to follow the motorcade down Elm St, has stepped back to a higher level and a little further east.

Prayer Man (Mr Oswald) remains in the same position from Hughes to Wiegman.

From Wiegman to Darnell, he will remain in the same spot, though his posture may well change:

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

Thumb1:
Of the IdentifiedPersonImages as filmed, including PersonImage C, misidentified as SarahStanton, who has been correctly identified as RuthDean, can any evidence be provided that anyone gave sworn statements/testimony confirming the then presence of AccusedAssassin LeeHarveyOswald at said filming?

Can any known area occupants' eyewitness testimony/sworn statement evidence be provided indicative of AccusedAssassin LeeHarveyOswald
being present as filmed, on the landing anywhere, especially in the PrayerPersonImage location?

Provided for review:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337201/m1/1/

 ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2019, 06:27:21 AM
It's not actually his discovery but, that aside, what is so amazing about "Bart Kamp's discovery"? I don't get it. All I see is an expansion on what Oswald was heard to have said in one of his interviews. It was merely one of Oswald's many lies. Not a single witness placed him out in front of the building watching the motorcade pass by. Not one.  There is nothing that corroborates that particular lie. But you Prayer Man cultists have been doing a circle jerk over it

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: Prayer Man is Oswald.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? Not even Oswald said he went out front!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: There's lots of evidence pointing to the contrary.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? There's no evidence to the contrary!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: What about Harry Holmes's WC testimony, and...

LONE NUTTER: You call that evidence? Ha ha ha. Nothing to see here!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: What if we were to find hard evidence that Oswald said he went out front?

LONE NUTTER: So you admit you have no hard evidence! Ha ha ha. Try harder!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: Actually, we have just uncovered a note written by Agent James Hosty which states that Oswald said he went out front.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? Oswald was a liar!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: But the Hosty note proves that Captain Fritz and co. lied about what he said in custody.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? Oswald was a liar!

PRAYER-MAN-IS-OSWALD ADVOCATE: But Prayer Man is standing just where Oswald puts himself.

LONE NUTTER: Are you nuts? Prayer Man is a bilocating woman in a male-receding-hairline wig. Ha ha ha. Try harder!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2019, 07:20:37 AM
From 5/24/64 New York Herald Tribune article by Dom Bonafede:

(https://i.imgur.com/Z60hIAE.jpg)

They had a big discussion down at the FBI and one guy said it just had to be Oswald.

? ? ?

This makes no sense. Why would the FBI be relieved that a figure in the doorway at the time of the Presidential Parade was not Mr Oswald? I mean, not even Oswald himself was claiming to have gone outside to watch the Presidential Parade!

Did these FBI guys never talk to one another? Agent Hosty could have set their minds at ease in a trice and saved them all this Lovelady bother! 'Don't worry, boys, Oswald says he was in the lunchroom. Look, here's my notes from the interrogation.'

 :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 15, 2019, 05:03:47 PM
Mr Lovelady in the Hughes film.

(https://i.imgur.com/isJdAHB.gif)

Behind him can be seen a figure in the Prayer Man spot.

I believe the figure just to Prayer Man's left is... Mr Bill Shelley.

'Out with Bill Shell[e]y in front'

Now!

Mr Shelley says something a little odd in his Warren testimony:

Mr. BALL - When you came into the shipping room did you see anybody?
Mr. SHELLEY - I saw Eddie Piper.
Mr. BALL - What was he doing?
Mr. SHELLEY - He was coming back from where he was watching the motorcade in the southwest corner of the shipping room.
Mr. BALL - Of the first floor of the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.


This is supposedly several minutes after the assassination.  Yet Mr Shelley feels in a position to tell us confidently where Mr Piper watched the motorcade from-----and that he himself saw Mr Piper 'coming back' from there as though fresh from having just seen the motorcade!

What's going on here?  ???

A good place to start is the fact that Mr Piper himself, in his Warren testimony the following day (April 8th), will be noticeably less confident in saying where he watched the motorcade from:

Mr. BALL What did you sit on?
Mr. PIPER. On a box.
Mr. BALL. Could you see out the window?
Mr. PIPER. Yes, I could see out the window but I couldn't see anything---too many people.
Mr. BALL. Did you eat your lunch there?
Mr. PIPER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where were you when the President's motorcade went by?
Mr. PIPER. Now, I don't know-I was sitting there, I'm sure.
Mr. BALL. When the President went by, where were you sitting?
Mr. PIPER. Probably sitting there in the same place.


Very odd indeed! It's almost as though Mr Piper is treading carefully here, nervous that Mr Ball may be about to confront him with evidence to the contrary.

-------------------First he tells Mr Ball that he chose to watch the motorcade from a place from which he 'couldn't see anything--too many people'!
-------------------Then he tells Mr Ball that this was only 'probably' the place from which he couldn't see anything!

Also! Compare (and contrast) the following from his 11/23/63 Sheriff's Dept. statement:

I went to a front window on the first floor and ate my lunch and waited to see the President's parade go by. I saw the President pass

A curious journey indeed from "I saw the President pass" (11/23/63) to "I couldn't see anything" (4/8/64)!

Now! Consider the very weird reason Mr Piper gives in his testimony for getting up and leaving his vantage point between the 2nd and 3rd shots:

Mr. PIPER. No, sir; I did it to see what time it was---when all this happened---to see what time it was.
Mr. BALL. What time was it?
Mr. PIPER. It was about between 12:30---between 12:27 and 12:30--something like that, as near as I can remember.


If this is weird enough behaviour, Mr Piper's story actually gets even weirder!

In his 11/23/63 Sheriff's Dept. statement he gives a different time:

"I [...] looked at the clock there and saw it was 12:25PM."

12:25PM? Why, that's the time the motorcade had originally been scheduled to pass the building!

Friends, here's what I'm driving at:

I strongly doubt Mr Piper watched the motorcade through one of the low-to-zero-visibility windows at front of first floor. I strongly doubt he ran back to check the time.

I think he may have indeed watched the parade through glass, but the glass not of one of the windows-----the glass of the front door.

If so, then he will have seen
A) the President pass
B) Mr Oswald 'out with Bill Shelley in front'.

That would be the same Bill Shelley who will rather gratuitously (and illogically) mention to Mr Ball that Mr Piper was only now-----------several minutes after the shooting------------'coming back' from having watched the motorcade from the other corner of the first floor... Talk about over-correction!

Question! Does anyone have a good estimate of what time the larger street scene photo here was taken at? It could be important... :o

(https://i.imgur.com/i74l9x1.jpg)

Thank you!  Thumb1:

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 16, 2019, 12:17:35 AM
In the Wiegman film, Prayer Man's head and body are facing forward:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

In my opinion:


In the Darnell film, Prayer Man's head is turned slightly left but his body is still facing forward. Compared to Wiegman, his right elbow and (especially) left elbow are now appreciably higher:

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_09/Prayerman-during-and-after---wearing-a-watch-maybe.gif.1971712aee87af85a26114e17b6d55d8.gif)

This is because his arms/hands are no longer in the 'prayer' position. His arms are crossed. His 'left elbow' in Darnell (circled in yellow below) is not his left elbow. It is something behind the glass door.

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

 Thumb1:



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 16, 2019, 12:26:39 AM
  His arms are crossed.
And is leaning against the wall correct? If nothing else, I know that rarely do women lean against a wall.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 16, 2019, 12:35:16 AM
And is leaning against the wall correct?

Possibly!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 16, 2019, 03:55:13 PM
See, Albert?   It was a dude taking pictures with a camera.  That's no lady, I think it was someone off of the street to get into the shadows for a better picture of the prez' a-goin by.  That's just my humble opinion, see?  No one was worrying about who was standing next to who when this historical moment was a-happenin'.  It was a dude, dude!!!

Except... it's not a camera.
----------------Only his right hand goes to his face
----------------And it doesn't raise the object high enough for his eyes


(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

Eating an apple, perhaps?

Now if only we could find a male Depository employee with receding dark hair who told Captain Fritz he had an apple as part of his lunch-----------and went out front to watch the Presidential parade  :'(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 16, 2019, 04:40:13 PM
Friends, the reason the Lone Nutters here and elsewhere are performing so wretchedly in their response to the Hosty note revelation is that, for the first time since the Warren Report publication, Mr Oswald is getting a chance to tell his side of the story. This has pulled the last sad piece of threadbare rug from under the Lone Nutters' feet.

For decades the question, Where was Lee Harvey Oswald when the President was shot?, was met with Clear Single Warren Answer vs. Diverse Circumstantial Anti-Warren Answers

Now it has come down to a straightforward contention between Claim A vs Claim B:
-------------'Oswald was at the southeast window on the 6th floor firing'
-------------'Oswald was out front watching the motorcade'

To say that the dumb money is on Claim A doesn't even begin to do justice to the disaster that has just befallen the Warrenistas.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 16, 2019, 06:15:24 PM
Friends, the reason the Lone Nutters here and elsewhere are performing so wretchedly in their response to the Hosty note revelation is that, for the first time since the Warren Report publication, Mr Oswald is getting a chance to tell his side of the story. This has pulled the last sad piece of threadbare rug from under the Lone Nutters' feet.

For decades the question, Where was Lee Harvey Oswald when the President was shot?, was met with Clear Single Warren Answer vs. Diverse Circumstantial Anti-Warren Answers

Now it has come down to a straightforward contention between Claim A vs Claim B:
-------------'Oswald was at the southeast window on the 6th floor firing'
-------------'Oswald was out front watching the motorcade'

To say that the dumb money is on Claim A doesn't even begin to do justice to the disaster that has just befallen the Warrenistas.

Meanwhile!

Where does this Hosty note leave the Anti-Warrenistas?

They split now into two groups: those who believe that Mr Oswald lied about his whereabouts, and those who believe he told the truth.

All those Warren Critics who, up to this, have been too devotedly wedded to the official lunchroom story to even entertain the notion that Mr Oswald was out front have been able since 2013 to disparage or ignore Prayer Man as a fringe theory with no more intrinsic merit than the LHO-In-Altgens garbage of yore.

Well, this Hosty note boots them out of their smug zone. If they wish to continue to defend the lunchroom hoax, they must now say that Mr Oswald lied not just about his whereabouts during the motorcade but also about the timing of his visit to the lunchroom.

And if they wish to say that, they must kindly explain to the rest of us why Mr Oswald would have told these specific lies.

Alternatively, they could just accept this latest piece of evidence in good faith and draw the obvious conclusion: the unaccounted-for figure on the west side of the Depository entrance can only be Mr Oswald.
Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 16, 2019, 06:30:00 PM
Meanwhile!

Where does this Hosty note leave the Anti-Warrenistas?

They split now into two groups: those who believe that Mr Oswald lied about his whereabouts, and those who believe he told the truth.

All those Warren Critics who, up to this, have been too devotedly wedded to the official lunchroom story to even entertain the notion that Mr Oswald was out front have been able since 2013 to disparage or ignore Prayer Man as a fringe theory with no more intrinsic merit than the LHO-In-Altgens garbage of yore.

Well, this Hosty note boots them out of their smug zone. If they wish to continue to defend the lunchroom hoax, they must now say that Mr Oswald lied not just about his whereabouts during the motorcade but also about the timing of his visit to the lunchroom.

And if they wish to say that, they must kindly explain to the rest of us why Mr Oswald would have told these specific lies.

Alternatively, they could just accept this latest piece of evidence in good faith and draw the obvious conclusion: the unaccounted-for figure on the west side of the Depository entrance can only be Mr Oswald.
Thumb1:

       Believing the Officer Baker/Oswald lunch room encounter was Bogus, does Not then immediately place Oswald on-the-steps of the TSBD.  Sure, it does place Oswald somewhere else, but that "somewhere else" is Not mandated to be The Steps.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 16, 2019, 06:34:57 PM
       Believing the Officer Baker/Oswald lunch room encounter was Bogus, does Not then immediately place Oswald on-the-steps of the TSBD.  Sure, it does place Oswald somewhere else, but that "somewhere else" is Not mandated to be The Steps.

This might have been a valid argument before the Hosty note was revealed!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 16, 2019, 06:40:28 PM
This might have been a valid argument before the Hosty note was revealed!

     I read the Hosty note as posted over at Denis's and did Not see it as The Steps Slam Dunk that some of you do. I did regard that Note as being New Evidence, (to me anyway), and strengthening your position.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 16, 2019, 08:41:26 PM
     I read the Hosty note as posted over at Denis's and did Not see it as The Steps Slam Dunk that some of you do. I did regard that Note as being New Evidence, (to me anyway), and strengthening your position.

Oh but it doesn't just strengthen our position, Mr Storing, it was predicted by it!

It is a matter of record that, long before the note's becoming known, the Prayer Man advocates had already inferred its precise contents from the evidence:
------------Mr Oswald told Fritz he visited the 2nd fl lunchroom before not after the shooting
------------Mr Oswald told Fritz he went out front to watch the motorcade.

These inferences didn't come from nowhere. They came from meticulous cross-examination of the official narrative of Mr Oswald's movements in those all-important minutes------the very same cross-examination that yielded the Prayer Man theory.

Not a 'Steps Slam Dunk'? Only one place satisfies the criteria of 'outside' (Hosty note) and 'in the building' (to TV reporter)---------the front entranceway. (Is anyone seriously going to argue that Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he watched the motorcade from out on the street?)

If Mr Oswald was lying about this and about his visit to the 2nd fl lunchroom, why did Captain Fritz and co. feel the need to lie about his lies? Why were the FBI so worried by the Altgens photograph? Why did DPD tell the press in the hours after the tragedy that, immediately after the assassination, Mr Oswald was challenged by a police officer who was rushing into the building's front entrance?

And-----------why has no one come close to offering a viable counter-candidate for Prayer Man?

Sounds like a slam dunk to me!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on February 17, 2019, 06:51:14 PM
Why is it important to find out who the prayer person is?

Perhaps a question that should be directed to the Person and Supporters that claim that the PrayerPersonImage represents arguably the most famous accused LoneGunmanAssassin in history, aka LeeHarveyOswald, who would have not been recognized by Co-worker BuellWesleyFrazier, who was standing about 2 feet away, that he rode to work with from Irving, TX, that very morning.      ???                                                                                                       

And, there were numerous other eyewitnesses as well on the landing/stairs during lunchtime viewing the Motorcade, that although being able to recall various other area occupants nearby, not one confirmed LeeHarveyOswald's presence anywhere on the landing/stairs at the time.         ::)

Also, perhaps another question can address the reasoning as to why said Person and Supporters decided to make said claim some 50 years, one-half century, after the Assassination of JFK.
                                     
 Walk:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 17, 2019, 09:56:39 PM
FRITZ: Okay, son, so you admit one of our men saw you in the lunchroom on the second floor?

OSWALD: Naturally if I was in the lunchroom at that time, yes, sir.

FRITZ: What were you doing there?

OSWALD: I had just bought a Coca Cola from the machine they have in there.

FRITZ: What did the officer say to you?

OSWALD: Well, he put a pistol up to my stomach and said 'Do you work here?' I told him I did, and my boss Mr Truly told him I was telling the truth.

FRITZ: What happened next?

OSWALD: Well, they went racing up the stairs.

FRITZ: What did you do then?

OSWALD: Well, I figured the policeman had given me a warning not to miss the President's visit. He and Mr Truly sure looked real keen to get upstairs for a good view of the parade themselves. So I brought my Coca Cola downstairs and went outside to watch the parade.

FRITZ: Did you speak to anyone on the way down?

OSWALD: Yes, sir. As I was going through the office towards the front stairway, a woman who works up there said to me, 'The President should be shot! But I hope they don't kill him.'

FRITZ: What did you say to her?

OSWALD: Oh nothing. I just muttered 'Crazy damn fascist' under my breath. Then I went downstairs and out front.

FRITZ: Let me get this clear, son. You're saying you went outside to watch the Presidential Parade?

OSWALD: Yes, sir. I went out on to the front steps.

FRITZ: What did you see when you got out onto the steps?

OSWALD: Well, it looked like people were real unhappy about the President coming to town. There was screaming and hollering and crying. There was so much excitement I didn't even get a good look at the President and Mrs Kennedy as they passed.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 17, 2019, 11:00:52 PM
   (1)  An interview conducted almost 40 years after the assassination in which Frazier SUDDENLY remembers having seen Oswald walking down Houston St = Credibility Issues. How for almost 40 years could Frazier forget seeing the alleged assassin walking down Houston St ? (2) The issue is Your claiming Oswald & Shelley exited the TSBD by the BACK DOOR. Why are You NOW claiming, "he went Out with Shelley IN FRONT"? (3) With regard to the Bookhout/Fritz notes of the Oswald 3:15 interrogation.  I read SA Hosty's notes of the interrogation as posted on Denis's platform.  Hosty did Not notate Oswald having mentioned exiting out the rear of the TSBD.  (4) Are there ANY Images of Frazier being in a physical position where he could see down Houston St between TSBD and the Dal Tex Bld? I am Not aware of any. Just so I am clear, (5) Do you believe that Oswald was inside the TSBD Lunch Room and was confronted by Officer Baker before exiting the TSBD?   

Where did he say he "SUDDENLY" remembered?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 17, 2019, 11:28:02 PM
Where did he say he "SUDDENLY" remembered?

      A 40 year Memory gap would certainly qualify as SUDDENLY. Especially considering Frazier drove Oswald to work, trained Oswald at the TSBD, in addition to Frazier having testified & interviewed countless times previously.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2019, 12:30:32 PM
I have to agree that Marina's "It's Lee" is pretty meaningless. She seems to have assumed that Prayer Man is the Altgens Doorwayman. Why else should she bring Billy Lovelady into it?

But who cares? The Prayer Man advocates have the Anti-Prayer-Man people running around like headless chickens. For the Hosty note confirms uncannily what the Prayer Man advocates have been saying all along:
----------Mr Oswald told Fritz he visited the 2nd fl lunchroom before the motorcade
----------Mr Oswald told Fritz he went out front to watch the motorcade
----------Fritz & Co. lied through their teeth about what Mr Oswald said.

The Hosty note renders null and void forever the 2 core Anti-PrayerMan arguments that
------------'There is no reason whatsoever to even entertain the notion that Mr Oswald might have been out front at the time of the shooting'
------------'There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the 2nd floor lunchroom incident happened'

It seems all the Anti-Prayer-Man people have left is 'It is crazy to think that a cover-up might have happened in this case'. Which argument is..... laughable.

 Thumb1:





Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2019, 05:49:56 PM
Friends!

There is an extremely important piece of information given by the Wiegman film that remains much ignored in commentary on the issue. Look closely at Prayer Man's hands:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

They are holding two different things.

How do we know this? Because when his right hand is brought up to his mouth (earlier frames) his left hand stays where it was---at upper chest level.

I can think of only one realistic scenario that explains what we're seeing here:

--------------Left hand: a drink
--------------Right hand: a piece of food

In my opinion-------we are seeing, in the right hand, the eaten (= white) side of an apple.

Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he brought cheese sandwiches and an apple to work that day.

Here's something else he told Fritz:

(https://i.imgur.com/Al8yyot.jpg)

So! Mr Oswald
-------------Buys coke in 2nd fl lunchroom
-------------Brings coke downstairs to domino room, where eats sandwiches
-------------Brings half-finished coke, and the apple, out front to watch parade.

By the time of Darnell, the apple is all eaten and the (empty?) coke bottle placed down on the ground. Mr Oswald's arms are now folded.

 Thumb1:


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2019, 06:39:12 PM
    I am attempting to follow your position on this subject. This is difficult to do when You have misrepresented what SA Hosty Noted during the 3:15 interrogation of Oswald. Hosty clearly noted that Oswald claimed he went Outside to "WATCH THE PARADE". This would be an alleged time stamping. The "WATCH THE PARADE" noted by Hosty would certainly be within the Prayer Man scene time frame. Personally, I have always felt that this was Not Oswald standing on The Steps. The SA Hosty notes are Extremely Important. Please be careful as to what you claim Hosty's Notes said. Whether intentional or accidental, You are doing your position a dis-service by misrepresenting what Hosty actually wrote down at 3:15 on 11/22/63.

 Thumb1:

Those trying frantically to explain away the Hosty note can only proceed by abbreviating 'Then went outside to watch P. Parade' to 'Then went outside.'

They're fooling nobody!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 18, 2019, 06:55:21 PM
Friends!

There is an extremely important piece of information given by the Wiegman film that remains much ignored in commentary on the issue. Look closely at Prayer Man's hands:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

They are holding two different things.

How do we know this? Because when his right hand is brought up to his mouth (earlier frames) his left hand stays where it was---at upper chest level.

I can think of only one realistic scenario that explains what we're seeing here:

--------------Left hand: a drink
--------------Right hand: a piece of food

In my opinion-------we are seeing, in the right hand, the eaten (= white) side of an apple.

Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he brought cheese sandwiches and an apple to work that day.

Here's something else he told Fritz:

(https://i.imgur.com/Al8yyot.jpg)

So! Mr Oswald
-------------Buys coke in 2nd fl lunchroom
-------------Brings coke downstairs to domino room, where eats sandwiches
-------------Brings half-finished coke, and the apple, out front to watch parade.

By the time of Darnell, the apple is all eaten and the (empty?) coke bottle placed down on the ground. Mr Oswald's arms are now folded.

 Thumb1:

    Just my opinion, but this whitish object appears to Not be the inside of an Apple. I believe we are seeing a White styrofoam cup probably used to hold coffee. There also appears to be something on the same arm/sleeve between the wrist & elbow
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2019, 07:57:02 PM
    Just my opinion, but this whitish object appears to Not be the inside of an Apple.

Why not?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2019, 08:32:41 PM
Friends, the enigma of Prayer Person is that here we have a person on the front steps whom no one remembers seeing there. The Invisible Person!

This simple fact, far from working against the PrayerPerson=LHO theory, actually works against any alternative theory.

If this had been any other Depository employee, then that employee would have described their whereabouts-------and/or had their whereabouts described by fellow employees--------in a way that would allow us to identify them with ease as Prayer Person.

If this had been a random stranger off the street, then their presence on the steps--------a non-employee in the midst of a sizeable group of employees--------would have been noticed in a way that would allow us to identify them with ease as Prayer Person.

There is literally only one person whose strange invisibility on those steps can be logically explained
-----------the Depository employee whom the authorities will soon be moving heaven and earth to pin the shooting on.

A non-LHO Prayer Person would give witnesses no conceivable motivation to keep quiet about their having seen them.

A witness statement confirming LHO as Prayer Person, by contrast, would elicit the response from the authorities to shut the hell up.

Mr Oswald probably went unnoticed by most people on the steps,
===========whose attention was focused on the motorcade and the mayhem aftermath
===========to whom he was a person of absolutely no interest in any case.

However, he was surely noticed by the following people, at a minimum:
---------Mr Frazier
---------Mr Shelley
---------Mr Lovelady
---------Mr Truly 
---------Officer Baker.

In the light of the Hosty note, those who believe Mr Oswald was not on those steps now need to explain their precise grounds for calling him a liar about his whereabouts at the time of the shooting.

Further, they need to explain why his claim as to his whereabouts would have been suppressed by Captain Fritz, Agents Bookhout and Hosty, and others.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 18, 2019, 08:37:58 PM
Why not?

     Several things. (1) Even though it's a B/W image I believe the color of the inside of an apple is Not that bright/white. Remember that area is deeply shadowed meaning the object has to be exceptionally White not opaque or off-white. (2) Not sure how You eat an apple, but I have the side I am eating facing Me. The Wiegman images has the alleged inside of the apple facing away from the individual allegedly eating it. This would mean the person eating the apple would have to be eating the apple as if it were an ear of corn. I have Never seen someone eat an apple in this manner. Also, makes griping/holding the apple difficult/slippery/messy. (3) To my eye the shape of the object appears to be more oblong than the circular shape of an apple.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 18, 2019, 09:06:35 PM
Friends, the enigma of Prayer Person is that here we have a person on the front steps whom no one remembers seeing there. The Invisible Person!

This simple fact, far from working against the PrayerPerson=LHO theory, actually works against any alternative theory.

If this had been any other Depository employee, then that employee would have described their whereabouts-------and/or had their whereabouts described by fellow employees--------in a way that would allow us to identify them with ease as Prayer Person.

If this had been a random stranger off the street, then their presence on the steps--------a non-employee in the midst of a sizeable group of employees--------would have been noticed in a way that would allow us to identify them with ease as Prayer Person.

There is literally only one person whose strange invisibility on those steps can be logically explained
-----------the Depository employee whom the authorities will soon be moving heaven and earth to pin the shooting on.

A non-LHO Prayer Person would give witnesses no conceivable motivation to keep quiet about their having seen them.

A witness statement confirming LHO as Prayer Person, by contrast, would elicit the response from the authorities to shut the hell up.

Mr Oswald probably went unnoticed by most people on the steps,
===========whose attention was focused on the motorcade and the mayhem aftermath
===========to whom he was a person of absolutely no interest in any case.

However, he was surely noticed by the following people, at a minimum:
---------Mr Frazier
---------Mr Shelley
---------Mr Lovelady
---------Mr Truly 
---------Officer Baker.

In the light of the Hosty note, those who believe Mr Oswald was not on those steps now need to explain their precise grounds for calling him a liar about his whereabouts at the time of the shooting.

Further, they need to explain why his claim as to his whereabouts would have been suppressed by Captain Fritz, Agents Bookhout and Hosty, and others.

 Thumb1:

      It is the SA Hosty Notes which have attracted my attention to the Prayer Man Issue. Previously, I had glanced over it. The Hosty Notes DO carry added weight. The early/quick 3:15 time of this Oswald Q/A also indicates that Oswald was telling a believable story right out of the box. Of course, just because Oswald claims to have gone outside the TSBD to "Watch The Parade" does Not automatically make this true. So why have these Hosty Notes been buried for 55+ years?  Why has Not One single person that was involved in that 3:15 Oswald Q/A Ever commented as to Oswald claiming that he was outside watching the parade? (SA Hosty included). The Identity of this individual on the TSBD steps needs to be addressed. Frazier and anyone else still alive that was on those steps needs to be directly questioned about this. This would include showing them ALL the pertinent Images showing this specific area shortly before, during, and after the assassination. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2019, 09:26:26 PM
     Several things. (1) Even though it's a B/W image I believe the color of the inside of an apple is Not that bright/white. Remember that area is deeply shadowed meaning the object has to be exceptionally White not opaque or off-white. (2) Not sure how You eat an apple, but I have the side I am eating facing Me. The Wiegman images has the alleged inside of the apple facing away from the individual allegedly eating it. This would mean the person eating the apple would have to be eating the apple as if it were an ear of corn. I have Never seen someone eat an apple in this manner. Also, makes griping/holding the apple difficult/slippery/messy. (3) To my eye the shape of the object appears to be more oblong than the circular shape of an apple.

Thank you for the comprehensive reply, Mr Storing!  Thumb1:

1) The inside of a green apple is as white---or nearly so---as a styrofoam cup.
(https://i.imgur.com/OPuWBth.jpg)

2.) + 3.)

(https://i.imgur.com/a4diIfD.jpg)


What do you believe Prayer Person might be holding in their left hand?

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2019, 09:32:24 PM
      It is the SA Hosty Notes which have attracted my attention to the Prayer Man Issue. Previously, I had glanced over it. The Hosty Notes DO carry added weight. The early/quick 3:15 time of this Oswald Q/A also indicates that Oswald was telling a believable story right out of the box. Of course, just because Oswald claims to have gone outside the TSBD to "Watch The Parade" does Not automatically make this true. So why have these Hosty Notes been buried for 55+ years?  Why has Not One single person that was involved in that 3:15 Oswald Q/A Ever commented as to Oswald claiming that he was outside watching the parade? (SA Hosty included).

Excellent post  Thumb1:

The questions in bold have an obvious answer: Mr Oswald had an alibi that checked out, and it was ruthlessly suppressed.

Mr Kamp's resourcefulness has allowed Mr Oswald to tell us his side of the story for the very first time.

Why-------knowing that Captain Fritz & Co. lied, and drawing the all-too-obvious inference from this grand lie--------should we disbelieve what Mr Oswald is telling us?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 18, 2019, 09:36:08 PM
With regard to the apple pic you posted, compare the Color of the inside of the apple that kid is holding to the Color of her Eye Balls. There is a difference. The inside of that apple is Not the BRIGHT White we are seeing on the Wiegman frames. To my eye, the Bright White of her Eye Balls is almost identical to the Bright White color of a styrofoam cup commonly used in break rooms throughout this country. I have No Idea as to what might be in the other hand of the person in question. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 18, 2019, 09:41:39 PM
Excellent post  Thumb1:

The questions in bold have an obvious answer: Mr Oswald had an alibi that checked out, and it was ruthlessly suppressed.

Mr Kamp's resourcefulness has allowed Mr Oswald to tell us his side of the story for the very first time.

Why-------knowing that Captain Fritz & Co. lied, and drawing the all-too-obvious inference from this grand lie--------should we disbelieve what Mr Oswald is telling us?

     I prefer relying on Evidence/Corroboration vs "inference" when making a determination as to what is a Fact or what I believe to be The Truth. This would Especially apply to the Alibi of a suspect.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2019, 09:44:15 PM
      With regard to the apple pic you posted, compare the Color of the inside of the apple that kid is holding to the Color of her Eye Balls. There is a difference. The inside of that apple is Not the BRIGHT White we are seeing on the Wiegman frames. To my eye, the Bright White of her Eye Balls is almost identical to the Bright White color of a styrofoam cup commonly used in break rooms throughout this country. I have No Idea as to what might be in the other hand of the person in question.

I'm sorry, Mr Storing, but you're straining here. Look at the white of the apple, compare it to the child's white tshirt. White both-----and not appreciably less white than a styrofoam cup. And the inside of many green apples are even whiter than the inside of this apple.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2019, 09:51:27 PM
     I prefer relying on Evidence/Corroboration vs "inference" when making a determination as to what is a Fact or what I believe to be The Truth. This would Especially apply to the Alibi of a suspect.

Well, this might explain why you're rather late to the Prayer Man party. In the case of a cover-up, where by definition crucial evidence has been suppressed, researchers must use inference to tease out the truth. And it was a set of brilliant inferences that predicted quite precisely the contents of the now-revealed Hosty note. The Hosty note now gives us the hard evidence we sought that Mr Oswald's claimed alibi was suppressed.

If Mr Oswald was telling the truth about having gone outside, yet is not Prayer Man, then where is he? And who the hell is Prayer Man?

If Mr Oswald was not telling the truth about having gone outside, and is not Prayer Man, then why was his lie suppressed? And who the hell is Prayer Man?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 18, 2019, 09:55:41 PM
I'm sorry, Mr Storing, but you're straining here. Look at the white of the apple, compare it to the child's white tshirt. White both-----and not appreciably whiter than a styrofoam cup.

    Maybe we are having a conflicting Monitor and or Vision issue with regard to  viewing the reproduction of the image you posted. There is No Way the inside of that apple is even close to the same color as the child's sleeve or eye balls. The Eye Balls are Bright White, the Sleeves are Off-White matching the inside/neck we also see, vs the inside of the Apple having a slight Green tinge to it. 3 different objects of 3 differing colors.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 18, 2019, 10:04:43 PM
Well, this might explain why you're rather late to the Prayer Man party. In the case of a cover-up, researchers must use inference to tease out the truth. And it was a set of brilliant inferences that predicted quite precisely the contents of the now-revealed Hosty note. The Hosty note now gives us the hard evidence we sought that Mr Oswald's claimed alibi was suppressed.

If Mr Oswald was telling the truth about having gone outside, yet is not Prayer Man, then where is he?

 Thumb1:

         Burying the Hosty Notes could have been done to also bury a Conspiracy and put the USA populace at ease. This conspiracy could also have included Oswald at some level. The act of burying the Hosty Notes does not all by itself absolve Oswald of being involved in the assassination of JFK. Those notes also do Not automatically place him on the steps of the TSBD.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2019, 10:18:19 PM
         Burying the Hosty Notes could have been done to also bury a Conspiracy and put the USA populace at ease.

 Thumb1: ('also'?)

Quote
This conspiracy could also have included Oswald at some level. The act of burying the Hosty Notes does not all by itself absolve Oswald of being involved in the assassination of JFK.

 Thumb1:

Quote
Those notes also do Not automatically place him on the steps of the TSBD.

They tell us that the authorities were terrified of his claims'----------visit to 2nd fl lunchroom before not after shooting + going outside to watch P. Parade---------becoming known. Now why would that be?

(Hint: Lunchroom Incident + Prayer Man.)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2019, 10:39:47 PM
Friends, the hostility of Lone Nutters to Prayer Man is understandable. This thing is a religion to them, and they will not give up their faith without a fight.

The hostility----------and that's what it is-----------of so many Warren Critics is more puzzling, though not wholly incomprehensible.

I think they split into three groups

-------------Those unfamiliar with the details of the theory who just lazily and haughtily assume it has no more merit than the LHO-in-Altgens nonsense that long plagued JFK research
-------------Those for whom this case is such a longtime hobby that they do not want to see it solved------------the anti-climax would be too great!
-------------Those who pinned their colors to the anti-PM=LHO mast, do not want to admit they got it wrong and are jealous of those who got it right (O vanitas vanitatum!)

Since the Hosty note revelation, all three groups have one thing in common: they are saying flat out that Mr Oswald lied about his whereabouts and that Captain Fritz & Co.'s astonishingly brazen suppression of his lie is of no evidentiary significance.

They would rather adopt a cover-up mentality than embrace the truly wonderful fact that this case has been blown wide open. Sad!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2019, 11:01:18 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ZteXsV9.jpg)

As soon as it became known to Curry & Co. just how soon after the shooting that officer (Marrion L. Baker) had rushed into the building, the line changed rather dramatically:

One of our officers saw Oswald with some others in a lunchroom on the second floor.

Not bad for a first draft of a fiction!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 19, 2019, 04:02:57 PM
    Why Not Stop defaming people and simply make your case?  It is difficult to follow the point(s) you are attempting to make when you repeatedly go off on these defamatory tangents. This serves no purpose other than to divert from the point you are making.  You completely lose your audience when you maniacally go off topic.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Dale Nason on February 19, 2019, 07:25:21 PM
To me, the white in the picture appears to possibly be a reflection from a flash attachment on a camera. Some of the flash units in those days had plastic light diffusers over the actual bulb that would have appeared white if sunlight was reflecting off of them. I used to own a flash attachment that was just like that.  The movement also appears to be the action of someone about to take a picture, moving the camera up to their face to look thru the viewer. So, did LHO have a camera with him at work on 11/22/63? We do know he owned a camera. Or, this could just be a photographer from the press. Or, just an ordinary citizen with a camera who went up on the steps to get a better vantage point for his/her camera. At any rate, I believe the "white" is some sort of sunlight reflection.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 19, 2019, 08:07:52 PM
To me, the white in the picture appears to possibly be a reflection from a flash attachment on a camera. Some of the flash units in those days had plastic light diffusers over the actual bulb that would have appeared white if sunlight was reflecting off of them. I used to own a flash attachment that was just like that.  The movement also appears to be the action of someone about to take a picture, moving the camera up to their face to look thru the viewer. So, did LHO have a camera with him at work on 11/22/63? We do know he owned a camera. Or, this could just be a photographer from the press. Or, just an ordinary citizen with a camera who went up on the steps to get a better vantage point for his/her camera. At any rate, I believe the "white" is some sort of sunlight reflection.

Mr Nason, the light-colored object is raised not to Prayer Man's eyes but to his mouth! Thumb1:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 19, 2019, 08:11:36 PM
To me, the white in the picture appears to possibly be a reflection from a flash attachment on a camera. Some of the flash units in those days had plastic light diffusers over the actual bulb that would have appeared white if sunlight was reflecting off of them. I used to own a flash attachment that was just like that.  The movement also appears to be the action of someone about to take a picture, moving the camera up to their face to look thru the viewer. So, did LHO have a camera with him at work on 11/22/63? We do know he owned a camera. Or, this could just be a photographer from the press. Or, just an ordinary citizen with a camera who went up on the steps to get a better vantage point for his/her camera. At any rate, I believe the "white" is some sort of sunlight reflection.

        The White Shape remains consistent as the arm moves from roughly a stomach level to face level. The Sun's Reflection should be varying as this item is in motion. Whatever we are seeing does Not vary. If that is the sun reflecting off of something at the level of the face, we should also be seeing the Sun illuminating at least a portion of the body at some point from the stomach to the facial flesh tones. There also are no apparent signs of the sun Anywhere in that small DARK area. I believe if the Sun was penetrating through that Very DARK area, it would be apparent.   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 19, 2019, 09:32:56 PM
I suppose it has been advanced that Prayer Person was just someone who was not anyone in the TSBD personnel?
But if so..why did they not ever come forward? Apparently, Lee Oswald was someone new there and was really quite 'un-noticable'.
Or, why didn't someone ever claim that he was there on the steps? But even if he wasn't, it doesn't necessarily mean that he was on the sixth floor.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 19, 2019, 09:34:38 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/bEXuLJC.jpg)

Then went out to watch P. Parade

Room for ambiguity: zero

  :-[
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 19, 2019, 10:02:47 PM
Apparently, Lee Oswald was someone new there and was really quite 'un-noticable'.

No! He had 'Future Notorious Assassin' written all over his smirky features. Babies were said to scream, and dogs to whimper, when he walked by.

Quote
Or, why didn't someone ever claim that he was there on the steps?

Someone did claim it: Mr Oswald. But his claim was so easily refuted that the authorities felt embarrassed for him and decided to protect his reputation by pretending it had never been made.  Thumb1:

Quote
But even if he wasn't, it doesn't necessarily mean that he was on the sixth floor.

But it does mean that he lied about his whereabouts, but that then, by an uncanny fluke, someone resembling him showed up in footage of the entrance steps-----someone whom not a blessed soul would be able to credibly identify as anyone other than him!

This on top of another uncanny fluke whereby a lady gifted with occult powers (Ms Carolyn Arnold) would, 15 years after Mr Oswald's death, psychically attract a cold call from a researcher named Anthony Summers and malevolently use the opportunity to tell him something that would precognitively chime with another as yet wholly unpublicised claim of Mr Oswald's!

If anything, all this points to Mr Oswald not just as the 6th floor shooter but as a Level 1 Satanic Mage. God Bless Jack Ruby for ridding the world of this horseman of the Antichrist!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 19, 2019, 10:32:30 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/bEXuLJC.jpg)

Then went out to watch P. Parade

Room for ambiguity: zero

  :-[

     Oswald saying he went outside to "watch the parade" does Not automatically make it a True statement. I find it curious when charged with shooting JFK that Oswald did Not immediately claim he was standing on the TSBD steps when the motorcade went by. He also could have used Frazier to corroborate his being in this position. Frazier was close enough to reach out and touch Prayer Man.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 19, 2019, 10:55:29 PM
     Oswald saying he went outside to "watch the parade" does Not automatically make it a True statement.

No, but it constitutes proof that his claim was suppressed by the authorities. Why would they suppress a false alibi?

Quote
I find it curious when charged with shooting JFK that Oswald did Not immediately claim he was standing on the TSBD steps when the motorcade went by.

But that's exactly what he'd been claiming in interrogation! The note proves this.

Unfortunately there is no footage of Mr Oswald's being charged with shooting JFK, so a claim as to what Mr Oswald did or did not say is baseless.

Quote
He also could have used Frazier to corroborate his being in this position. Frazier was close enough to reach out and touch Prayer Man.

And later that night Fritz was close enough to reach out and hit Frazier (as Frazier still recalls with some bitterness). Frazier was threatened with a charge of conspiracy to murder JFK. He was utterly terrified.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 19, 2019, 11:26:45 PM
No, but it constitutes proof that his claim was suppressed by the authorities. Why would they suppress a false alibi?

But that's exactly what he'd been claiming in interrogation! The note proves this.

Unfortunately there is no footage of Mr Oswald's being charged with shooting JFK, so a claim as to what Mr Oswald did or did not say is baseless.

And later that night Fritz was close enough to reach out and hit Frazier (as Frazier still recalls with some bitterness). Frazier was threatened with a charge of conspiracy to murder JFK. He was utterly terrified.

    Oswald did Not use Frazier to corroborate his being on the TSBD steps because he had No idea who was standing in that area when the motorcade went by. Very simple.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 19, 2019, 11:37:30 PM
    Oswald did Not use Frazier to corroborate his being on the TSBD steps because he had No idea who was standing in that area when the motorcade went by. Very simple.

Ah, thank you for dropping the mask of objectivity, Mr Storing!  Thumb1:

Now!

'Oswald did Not use Frazier to corroborate his being on the TSBD steps...': You know this how exactly? Were you present at the interrogations? Have you heard audio none of us have heard?

Or are you being so crass as to allow tendentious speculation do the work of evidence-based analysis?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 19, 2019, 11:38:15 PM
And as well, Mr Storing, DPD Captain WillFritz's notes are very likely not exactly what the most famous accused LoneGunmanAssassin in history, LeeHarveyOswald (1939-1963), actually said.

       I have more confidence in a G-Man. I believe the SA Hosty notes are accurate.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 19, 2019, 11:39:59 PM
Ah, thank you for dropping the mask of objectivity, Mr Storing!  Thumb1:

Now!

'Oswald did Not use Frazier to corroborate his being on the TSBD steps...': You know this how exactly? Were you present at the interrogations? Have you heard audio none of us have heard?

Or are you being so crass as to allow tendentious speculation do the work of evidence-based analysis?

    Are you claiming Oswald used Frazier to corroborate his alibi? If so, just say so.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Dale Nason on February 20, 2019, 01:19:16 AM
The shadows of the people on the sidewalk leads me to believe that the there could have been a reflection from a flash unit inside of the entranceway  to the Depository. And, I don't know how one can say that it was at the " mouth level" of the person who is the " Prayer Woman". I don't see a face or mouth at all. Just an image of a person. I'm not saying it's LHO. I'm just saying that it appears to me that it could have been someone about to take a picture. Someone with a camera would make perfect sense, given what was going on in front of the Depository. Just trying to be logical. Not assuming anything.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 20, 2019, 08:52:12 AM
    Are you claiming Oswald used Frazier to corroborate his alibi? If so, just say so.

Oswald did Not use Frazier to corroborate his being on the TSBD steps because he had No idea who was standing in that area when the motorcade went by. Very simple.
(Royell Storing)

Again I ask: how exactly do you know that Mr Oswald did not use Mr Frazier to corroborate his being on the steps?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 20, 2019, 08:55:28 AM
And, I don't know how one can say that it was at the " mouth level" of the person who is the " Prayer Woman".

Easy--------by cross-referencing Prayer Man in Wiegman with Prayer Man in Darnell!  Thumb1:
Title: -- >>>>> It's NOT Lee <<<<< --
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 20, 2019, 01:41:17 PM
The "Oswald Is Prayer Man" gullibles, including Larry Grayson lookalike Bart Kamp and Burger Muncher Jim DiNobrainio, are all getting their knickers in a twist over an Ed "Tiny" Ledoux inspired and almost certainly misrepresented alleged statement by Marina.

Mr Ed claims that in his first interview with Marina, which he states was unrecorded, that Marina said "It's Lee"

If she did say that, and that's a BIG "if"  it most probably had a BIG question mark at the end of it, ie, " It's Lee ? "

How something is said can make a huge difference to the real meaning of a sentence, this is just common sense.

Here is his short second interview with Marina, below, which sums up it's evidentiary value as evidence of Oswald being Prayer Man.

Listen for this "Says It All" sentence ( Quoted Below ) from Marina.

"I am not going to read that book...There are too many characters involved...All they had to do is compare two faces, Lee and Billy Lovelady...
 The rest didn't matter"

In other words, she is saying politely, and she is correct, that the book is a load of crap compiled by the rancid Bearded Skunk Dribbler, Stan "Whiffer" Dane.


Marina hasn't a clue about Prayer Man, no offence to Marina intended.

She obviously thinks that Ledoux's enquiry is about a comparison between Oswald & Billy Lovelady in the " Man In The Doorway" theory.

Here is the process of Marina's alleged Identification of Prayer Man as Oswald. What a bunch of jokers they are.  :D

Quote: Ed Ledoux:

"When I got to Richard Sprague?s annotated sketches of Weigman and the label of an unknown figure marked J. she stopped me."

Marina interjected and said ?That?s Lee?

Here is the Sprague "J" sketch that Marina allegedly identified as Oswald.  :D

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Marinacomp.jpg)

Failed Business"Man" Shaky Handed Photographer and Twinkle Toed Klog Tapping Ballet Dancer Kamp should rename his article about Mr Ed's interview with Marina
"Friday The 13th 22nd and The Texas Prayer Man Massacre" .....geddit?  :D

Can anyone NOT see the resemblance? The Sprague sketch looks like a cross between Leatherface and Jason Voorhees.

"Friday The 13th 22nd and The Texas Prayer Man Massacre"

         Jason                                              Leatherface
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Chainsaw.jpg)

The J obviously stands for Jason.  :) Now that's real research folks.  :)

Bye for now, and remember, Barking Bart always says (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/larry.jpg) "Shut That Door"(https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/mutley-rindo-gif-6.gif)
Title: Re: -- >>>>> It's NOT Lee <<<<< --
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 20, 2019, 01:42:19 PM
Just in from The Larry Grayson doppelganger. (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Mutley.gif)

Grayson Kamp Quote: "MacRae has now separated the post into a new thread.
If the twat is worth his salt which he isn't he should call Marina and find out whether we and Marina are talking rubbish.
Go on then Duncan I dare you!!!
You don't want to be known as a small peckered pleb do ya?!"


Bye for now, and remember, Barking Larry Bart always says (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/larry.jpg) "Shut That Door" (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Mutley.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 20, 2019, 03:08:00 PM
Oswald did Not use Frazier to corroborate his being on the TSBD steps because he had No idea who was standing in that area when the motorcade went by. Very simple.
(Royell Storing)

Again I ask: how exactly do you know that Mr Oswald did not use Mr Frazier to corroborate his being on the steps?

 Thumb1:

     There is No Evidence I am aware of that Oswald EVER used Frazier as corroboration of his being on the TSBD Steps when the JFK motorcade passed by. If you are aware of any Evidence of Oswald having done this please post it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Robert Reeves on February 20, 2019, 06:01:16 PM
The shadows of the people on the sidewalk leads me to believe that the there could have been a reflection from a flash unit inside of the entranceway  to the Depository. And, I don't know how one can say that it was at the " mouth level" of the person who is the " Prayer Woman". I don't see a face or mouth at all. Just an image of a person. I'm not saying it's LHO. I'm just saying that it appears to me that it could have been someone about to take a picture. Someone with a camera would make perfect sense, given what was going on in front of the Depository. Just trying to be logical. Not assuming anything.

Agree. It looks like someone holding a camera to their face.

If so, very intriguing ... where are the pictures (in any were taken from that camera)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Logan on February 20, 2019, 07:37:25 PM
He thinks he was banned from the Ed Forum because of his superior best on the internet detective skills.  :D :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on February 20, 2019, 08:24:10 PM
While I am not going to ban the word "troll" from use on this Forum, If any member is offended by being personally called a troll, or by being accused of trolling on this Forum, then I will delete the posts which contain the alleged offending comments, regardless of who the alleged offender is and regardless of the remaining content of the alleged offending post..... if....that's "if" I receive a direct  link to the offending post(s) via PM.

It was a dude taking pictures with a camera. 
Title: Re: -- >>>>> It's NOT Lee <<<<< --
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 20, 2019, 09:40:20 PM
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Mutley.gif)this is what Marina said.
"I am not going to read that book...There are too many characters involved...All they had to do is compare two faces, Lee and Billy Lovelady"..."The rest didn't matter"(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Mutley.gif)


      The Real Deal
(http://rs727.pbsrc.com/albums/ww273/rosseisner/ArrowDownRed.gif~c200)
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/book.jpg)


Bye for now, and remember, Barking Larry Bart always says (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/larry.jpg) "Shut That Door" (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Mutley.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Dale Nason on February 20, 2019, 09:51:59 PM
I'm not into the " trolling thing" Not into accusing others of anything. I'm more into looking into things factually. Listening to others opinions. I just see someone who appears to be moving something to their face and it appears to me that It " may" be a camera with a flash unit attached. I don't see the position that it is a " purse'. Film optics with sunlight reflection wouldn't support that in my opinion. But, that's just my opinion. Others may disagree. But I'm not going to disagree with them. Except when they say thsy something has been accepted as " fact". when, in fact, it has not.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 20, 2019, 09:53:59 PM
Agree. It looks like someone holding a camera to their face.


I disagree. To me, it looks like someone taking a drink from a mug.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 20, 2019, 09:58:16 PM
I disagree. To me, it looks like someone taking a drink from a mug.

      It has the shape and color of a styrofoam cup which is commonly used in break rooms to hold coffee.  And whoever this person is, they are very close to the TSBD Break Room.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Dale Nason on February 20, 2019, 09:59:14 PM
Maybe she was looking into her purse to get her camera out and decided instead to get out her mug of beer ! :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 20, 2019, 10:00:35 PM
     There is No Evidence I am aware of that Oswald EVER used Frazier as corroboration of his being on the TSBD Steps when the JFK motorcade passed by. If you are aware of any Evidence of Oswald having done this please post it.

Mr Storing, you evidently cannot back up your claim that 'Oswald did Not use Frazier to corroborate his being on the TSBD steps'. No biggie!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 20, 2019, 10:01:01 PM
Maybe she was looking into her purse to get her camera out and decided instead to get out her mug of beer ! :D :D :D :D

     One of those 1963 Felix The Cat Magic Bags?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 20, 2019, 10:02:37 PM
Mr Storing, you evidently cannot back up your claim that 'Oswald did Not use Frazier to corroborate his being on the TSBD steps'. No biggie!  Thumb1:

      So again we have someone asking for Proof of a Negative.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 20, 2019, 10:03:14 PM
You don't know what's in her hand. Actually, it hasn't even been proven that it's Sarah Stanton.

Actually, it's been proven that it's not Sarah Stanton. Which is why you're 80% certain it's her!  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 20, 2019, 10:03:37 PM
      It has the shape and color of a styrofoam cup which is commonly used in break rooms to hold coffee.  And whoever this person is, they are very close to the TSBD Break Room.

Thr shape of it cannot be made out.  The person is not very close to the TSBD break room.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 20, 2019, 10:05:14 PM
      So again we have someone asking for Proof of a Negative.

No, just backup for a ridiculous claim. You embarrassed yourself, but hey, thanks for playing!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 20, 2019, 10:07:14 PM
Quote from: Mark A. Oblazney link=topic=562.msg44978#msg44978 date=1 Thumb1:550694250
It was a dude taking pictures with a camera.

Definitely--it's well known that people's eyes in 1963 were located in their neck!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 20, 2019, 10:12:26 PM
Thr shape of it cannot be made out.  The person is not very close to the TSBD break room.

      The general shape of it is circular and oblong. It would fit that the person in question had gone into the TSBD Breakroom, got a styrofoam cup of coffee, and then went outside to view the JFK Motorcade passing by.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 20, 2019, 10:32:08 PM
All the rational lurkers following this thread must be scratching their heads in sheer wonderment. A bombshell document is unearthed that proves that Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he was outside at the time of the motorcade, and that Captain Fritz and Co. lied about this, and what do our resident 'researchers' do? They go into overdrive contriving one ridiculous scenario after another to explain away the Mr-Oswald-resembling man on the front steps as someone other than Mr Oswald.

Their attitude? Oswald said he went out front. Therefore Prayer Man must be Anybody But Oswald.

You couldn't make these people up!  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 20, 2019, 11:15:17 PM
All the rational lurkers following this thread must be scratching their heads in sheer wonderment. A bombshell document is unearthed that proves that Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he was outside at the time of the motorcade, and that Captain Fritz and Co. lied about this, and what do our resident 'researchers' do? They go into overdrive contriving one ridiculous scenario after another to explain away the Mr-Oswald-resembling man on the front steps as someone other than Mr Oswald.

Their attitude? Oswald said he went out front. Therefore Prayer Man must be Anybody But Oswald.

You couldn't make these people up!  :D

    I agree that the Hosty Notes are a "bombshell". The "bombshell" being that there IS New JFK Assassination Evidence out there. What better place to hide Evidence = SS Notes than in "Plain Sight" inside the National Archives?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Dale Nason on February 21, 2019, 12:30:07 AM
I Don't see anything that proves that it's a woman. Actually, I think it looks more like a man considering the size of the person. But, " maybe" it's a large woman.....over 5'6". and maybe she has a purse.....no proof. But man or woman....I think  " it" has a camera.....not a purse.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 05:04:47 AM
    I agree that the Hosty Notes are a "bombshell". The "bombshell" being that there IS New JFK Assassination Evidence out there.

Nope! The bombshell being that
A) Mr Oswald claimed to have
----------visited the 2nd fl lunchroom before not after the shooting
----------gone out front to watch the motorcade
B) these claims were ruthlessly suppressed by Captain Fritz and Co.

The above facts will have come as a surprise only to those who weren't listening to what the Prayer Man people have been saying all along.

For 55 years, the default images of Mr Oswald have been a man firing from a 6th floor window and a man walking into a lunchroom.
Both images are the results of a hoax predicated upon a cover-up.
Lone Nutters' attachment to the first image has blinded them to reality.
Warren Critics' attachment to the second image has blinded them to reality.

The new default image of Mr Oswald is a man standing in the front entranceway.
It's the image supported by his own claim; it's the image supported by the evidence; it's the image supported by common sense.

Kooks who want to assume that Mr Oswald was lying, that evidence can be ignored and that common sense need not be applied will continue to resist the new default image. Their bad faith and special pleading are nothing more than a source of anthropological amusement to the rest of us!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 07:10:31 AM
"And all of that subterfuge and lying was done just so they could?what was it now??oh, yes....just so they could falsely place Oswald on the SECOND FLOOR instead of the FIRST FLOOR (which is where most CTers say he was in the first place). Hardly seems worth it, does it? Because the SECOND FLOOR isn't the SIXTH FLOOR, is it? You'd think the crafters of this Baker/Oswald ruse would have had Baker and Truly (both rotten l-i-a-r-s, according to CTers) say they saw Oswald dashing down the stairs between the SIXTH and FIFTH floors. Such a fabricated tale would have been infinitely better for the "Let's Frame Oswald" team of plotters." - D. von Pein (Dec 2017).

There was no way Officer Baker was going to come on board a story that he let loose a man caught dashing down the stairs between the 6th and 5th floors. It would have made him the second most despised man in Dallas.

It seems he was brought round to 'third or fourth floor' that day, but it soon became clear that that story wouldn't wash (Ms Adams, anyone?).

There was little option but to locate the fictitious incident in the 2nd fl lunchroom
-------------close to the back stairway!  :)
-------------away from prying eyes!  :)
-------------Mr Oswald really had been in there (albeit before the shooting)!  :)

Next step: pretend that Mr Oswald confirmed the lunchroom incident to Captain Fritz.

But the Hosty notes have now blown the lid off that deception. Those like Mr von Pein who wish to remain sweetly gullible in the light of the Hosty note are only making fools of themselves!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: David Von Pein on February 21, 2019, 10:34:43 AM
But why did the cops have to invent ANY Baker/Oswald "encounter"?

IMO, it would have been much better (and safer for those evil cops) to have had NO ENCOUNTER at all than to just MAKE UP some false story about seeing LHO on a floor that was FOUR floors away from the assassin's floor. It's just silly.

And we know Oswald admitted to being in the building at around noontime anyway. Plus, we know that Oswald WAS on an UPPER FLOOR at about 11:45-11:55, shortly prior to the shooting. (Verified by the four "elevator race" employees. They can't ALL be liars, can they?)

So a made-up second-floor encounter is superfluous. It's totally unneeded---even if the cops WERE framing Oswald.

Lots more about Oswald's whereabouts on 11/22/63.....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 11:34:21 AM
But why did the cops have to invent ANY Baker/Oswald "encounter"?

IMO, it would have been much better (and safer for those evil cops) to have had NO ENCOUNTER at all than to just MAKE UP some false story about seeing LHO on a floor that was FOUR floors away from the assassin's floor. It's just silly.

They had to get Mr Oswald well away from that front doorway, which is where they knew he'd been!  Thumb1:

Quote
And we know Oswald admitted to being in the building at around noontime anyway.

And we know now-----------thanks to the Hosty notes------------that Mr Oswald explained that he had visited the 2nd fl lunchroom before the motorcade and had subsequently gone outside "to watch the Presidential Parade".

Once again: They had to get him well away from that front doorway, which is where they knew he'd been!

Unfortunately, however, Jesse Curry and Ed Hicks had already blabbed to the press about the real Oswald-officer encounter at----------------you guessed it------------------the front entrance!  :'(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Dale Nason on February 21, 2019, 01:23:29 PM
Here's another possibility for what prayer woman/ prayer man is holding. A pair of white gloves! They were popular and in style for women to wear in that era. If this were true, then it must be a woman. Or, LHO in drag?   LOL
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Agee on February 21, 2019, 01:23:54 PM
But why did the cops have to invent ANY Baker/Oswald "encounter"?

IMO, it would have been much better (and safer for those evil cops) to have had NO ENCOUNTER at all than to just MAKE UP some false story about seeing LHO on a floor that was FOUR floors away from the assassin's floor. It's just silly.

And we know Oswald admitted to being in the building at around noontime anyway. Plus, we know that Oswald WAS on an UPPER FLOOR at about 11:45-11:55, shortly prior to the shooting. (Verified by the four "elevator race" employees. They can't ALL be liars, can they?)

So a made-up second-floor encounter is superfluous. It's totally unneeded---even if the cops WERE framing Oswald.

Lots more about Oswald's whereabouts on 11/22/63.....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html

Of course it's silly for the cop(s) to make up this story. And it's not just the evil cops; it's the evil cops + Truly that have to make this up. And the witnesses that saw Baker & Truly together. Beyond silly. BTW, great to see you posting David, hope to see more!

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 02:02:02 PM
Here's another possibility for what prayer woman/ prayer man is holding. A pair of white gloves! They were popular and in style for women to wear in that era. If this were true, then it must be a woman. Or, LHO in drag?   LOL

Yes---it was the height of fashion amongst female clerical staff in that era to signal their excitement by chewing on their gloves.

Anybody But Oswald, eh? LOL.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 02:12:56 PM
Of course it's silly for the cop(s) to make up this story. And it's not just the evil cops; it's the evil cops + Truly that have to make this up. And the witnesses that saw Baker & Truly together. Beyond silly.

It stops being silly in the light of the Hosty interrogation notes:

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

What you and your fellow Warren Gullibles must now explain is why the world was told the precise claimed location of every single Depository employee at the time of the motorcade, but not the precise claimed location of the one Depository employee whose location at the time of the motorcade was considered all-important.

You must also explain why a pretence was made-----after Mr Oswald's death------that he had confirmed a visit to the 2nd fl lunchroom for a Coca Cola after the shooting, when in fact he had told Captain Fritz he had bought the coke before the motorcade.

Are you suggesting that the suppression of these critically important claims made by Mr Oswald was something other than an act of deception on the part of Captain Fritz & Co.? Are you really that gullible?

BTW! Dismissing all this with a wave of the hand and a cry of 'Oswald lied!' does not begin to dispose of the problem. For it leaves unexplained why Captain Fritz & Co. would have seen fit to lie about Mr Oswald's lies.

The Hosty notes have checkmated the Warren Gullibles and their fellow lunchroom-incident believers on the Anti-Warren side!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 21, 2019, 02:52:12 PM
Here's another possibility for what prayer woman/ prayer man is holding. A pair of white gloves! They were popular and in style for women to wear in that era. If this were true, then it must be a woman. Or, LHO in drag?   LOL

     As I said in a previous post, short/wrist length WHITE gloves such as Jackie wore that day would also stand out in the dark shadows. If this is a woman, maybe a smoker, maybe she has a cold, raising her hand up to her mouth in order to cover a Cough.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 02:58:54 PM
     As I said in a previous post, short/wrist length WHITE gloves such as Jackie wore that day would also stand out in the dark shadows. If this is a woman, maybe a smoker, maybe she has a cold, raising her hand up to her mouth in order to cover a Cough.

Heavens above, Mr Storing really really really doesn't want Prayer Man to be Mr Oswald!

What's next? Polystyrene gloves?  :D

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 03:10:34 PM
I like this from Mr D Josephs, especially the grayscale part!

(https://i.imgur.com/kAV3zjw.jpg)

Mr Oswald, with arms folded. His 'left elbow' = something behind the glass.

If only, if only, if only something this so-obviously-Oswaldian had shown up in an image of the 6th floor southeast window. It's enough to break the heart of every decent Gullible everywhere!  :'(

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 21, 2019, 03:13:50 PM
Heavens above, Mr Storing really really really doesn't want Prayer Man to be Mr Oswald!

What's next? Polystyrene gloves?  :D

      The image we are looking at is inconclusive. YOU Desperately Desire this Image to fit your narrative. You have Absolutely Zero Objectivity with regard to the ID of Prayer Man/Woman.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 03:21:50 PM
      The image we are looking at is inconclusive. YOU Desperately Desire this Image to fit your narrative. You have Absolutely Zero Objectivity with regard to the ID of Prayer Man/Woman.

Whereas your idea of objectivity is to rule out the possibility that Mr Oswald is Prayer Man-----------------
"Oswald did Not use Frazier to corroborate his being on the TSBD steps because he had No idea who was standing in that area when the motorcade went by. Very simple."
-----------------and then resume your fanciful Anybody-But-Oswald speculations on this 'inconclusive' image.

Keep up the good work!  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 21, 2019, 03:21:58 PM
I like this from Mr D Josephs, especially the grayscale part!

(https://i.imgur.com/kAV3zjw.jpg)

Mr Oswald, with arms folded. His 'left elbow' = something behind the glass.

If only, if only, if only something this so-obviously-Oswaldian had shown up in an image of the 6th floor southeast window. It's enough to break the heart of every decent Gullible everywhere!  :'(

     To be honest and objective, this image, (the Real Image), looks more like a Female. The dark smudge underneath where the ear would be = what could be Hair curling beneath and around the ear lobe.  The dark smudge above that same ear could also be hair.  Think of Veronica Lake with her hair a little shorter. You are defeating your argument by proffering this Image.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 21, 2019, 03:29:15 PM
Whereas your idea of objectivity is to rule out the possibility that Mr Oswald is Prayer Man-----------------
"Oswald did Not use Frazier to corroborate his being on the TSBD steps because he had No idea who was standing in that area when the motorcade went by. Very simple."
-----------------and then resume your fanciful Anybody-But-Oswald speculations on this 'inconclusive' image.

Keep up the good work!  :D

     If you worked at the TSBD and were trained by Frazier, would YOU Not notice his tall and gangly presence looming above on your immediate left? I am Not ruling out this is him. But if Oswald did Not offer Frazier as a witness to his being on those steps, I would assume it was because Oswald was Not on those steps and therefore had No Idea who was there and who was not. It would be plausible that Oswald did offer Frazier witnessing his presence during an interrogation. Unfortunately, You are not offering this explanation. Try slowing yourself down and thinking things through. You continue diminishing your own position on this issue.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 21, 2019, 03:34:41 PM
To be honest and objective, this image, (the Real Image), looks more like a Female.

Indeed.  ???

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/comp1.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 03:36:14 PM
But if Oswald did Not offer Frazier as a witness to his being on those steps, I would assume it was because Oswald was Not on those steps and therefore had No Idea who was there and who was not.

The operative word here being 'if', Mr Storing. You previously gave it as a statement of fact that Mr Oswald did not offer Mr Frazier as a witness, even underscoring this unwarranted claim with the words 'Very simple'. Tsk tsk!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 03:39:06 PM
Indeed.  ???

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/comp1.jpg)

Yes--Sarah Stanton wearing a dark, male-pattern-baldness wig-in-a-professional-situation!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 21, 2019, 03:53:33 PM
The operative word here being 'if', Mr Storing. You previously gave it as a statement of fact that Mr Oswald did not offer Mr Frazier as a witness, even underscoring this unwarranted claim with the words 'Very simple'. Tsk tsk!

     The Evidence on hand does make it a Fact that Oswald did Not offer Frazier as a witness to his standing on the steps. If you KNOW of Evidence that Oswald did in Fact claim this, please proffer that Evidence.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 04:23:16 PM
     The Evidence on hand does make it a Fact that Oswald did Not offer Frazier as a witness to his standing on the steps.

What sophistical nonsense!

The evidence on hand----the Hosty notes-----makes it a fact that certain extremely important claims made by Mr Oswald in custody were suppressed in the official interrogation reports.

And now you tell us that those same official interrogation reports are to be trusted as full and accurate representations of what Mr Oswald said in custody?

Stop arguing like a cover-up-supporting Lone Nutter, Mr Storing, you're embarrassing yourself!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 04:41:23 PM
     To be honest and objective, this image, (the Real Image), looks more like a Female. The dark smudge underneath where the ear would be = what could be Hair curling beneath and around the ear lobe.  The dark smudge above that same ear could also be hair.  Think of Veronica Lake with her hair a little shorter. You are defeating your argument by proffering this Image.

(https://i.imgur.com/kAV3zjw.jpg)

Hmmm... if we take an honest and objective look at the 'dark smudge underneath where the ear would be', we see that it's a winding key. Prayer Man is an automaton!

(https://i.imgur.com/sI7OqIz.gif)

Alternatively, we could be boring about this and, suspecting digital artefacts, take the trouble to consult the original version of the frame before leaping to silly conclusions.  ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 21, 2019, 05:03:20 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/kAV3zjw.jpg)

Hmmm... if we take an honest and objective look at the 'dark smudge underneath where the ear would be', we see that it's a winding key. Prayer Man is an automaton!

(https://i.imgur.com/sI7OqIz.gif)

Alternatively, we could be boring about this and, suspecting digital artefacts, take the trouble to consult the original version of the frame before leaping to silly conclusions.  ::)

    Women with a long hair style frequently wrap/twist their hair behind an ear.  The bottom section of this hair which is Wrappeed Around the back of the ear then often falls forward traveling along the jaw line. Google Veronica Lake and think of Shorter hair being worn in this style and wrapped back around her ear.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 05:52:08 PM
    Women with a long hair style frequently wrap/twist their hair behind an ear.  The bottom section of this hair which is Wrappeed Around the back of the ear then often falls forward traveling along the jaw line. Google Veronica Lake and think of Shorter hair being worn in this style and wrapped back around her ear.

Google "Occam's razor" and "Process of elimination", and then think of Mr Lee H. Oswald, a man with short dark receding hair whose own statement puts him there!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/NK03tPQ.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on February 21, 2019, 06:33:39 PM
I like this from Mr D Josephs, especially the grayscale part!

(https://i.imgur.com/kAV3zjw.jpg)

Mr Oswald, with arms folded. His 'left elbow' = something behind the glass.

Dear Alan,

Was Oswald's hair long enough to partially cover his ear like that?

Regardless, I'm surprised Josephs didn't draw a little smirk on Oswald's face while he was at it.

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

PS  The next time you speak with David, ask him what his "take" on Byetkov/Obyedkov is.

LOL
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on February 21, 2019, 08:00:35 PM
False.

Also false.

Also false.

Also false.

Also false.

Also false.

Also false.

Iacoletti,

Which ones can you prove, with verifiable evidence, to be false?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy   :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 21, 2019, 09:58:08 PM
Of course it's silly for the cop(s) to make up this story. And it's not just the evil cops; it's the evil cops + Truly that have to make this up. And the witnesses that saw Baker & Truly together. Beyond silly. BTW, great to see you posting David, hope to see more!

Don't forget Mrs. Reid, who saw Oswald less than a minute later.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 21, 2019, 10:02:09 PM
     To be honest and objective, this image, (the Real Image), looks more like a Female. The dark smudge underneath where the ear would be = what could be Hair curling beneath and around the ear lobe.  The dark smudge above that same ear could also be hair.  Think of Veronica Lake with her hair a little shorter. You are defeating your argument by proffering this Image.

To be honest and objective, I can't say that it looks more like a female than a male, and vice versa.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 10:28:22 PM
Agent Hosty wrote this--------------

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

--------------and then told the Warren Commission this-------------

"Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building."

Let's play the comparison game, shall we?

-"at noon went to lunch" (notes) ----->  "went to lunch at approximately noon" (testimony)  = MATCH! Thumb1:
-"Coca Cola to eat with lunch" (notes)----->  "gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch" (testimony) = MATCH!  Thumb1:
-"went outside to watch P. Parade" (notes) ----->   "was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building" (testimony) = PANTS ON FIRE!  >:(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 10:48:08 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ugI8bNp.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 10:51:12 PM
Stablised by the amazing Mr R. Unger!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/Mt7tSlA.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/dVIlekA.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 21, 2019, 11:17:14 PM
Mr Nason, the light-colored object is raised not to Prayer Man's eyes but to his mouth! Thumb1:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

     Bump for comparison to the Image above.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 21, 2019, 11:22:58 PM
Yet another piece of excellent craftsmanship from Mr C Davidson!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/yoe0bVl.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Dale Nason on February 21, 2019, 11:33:48 PM
The more I see it, the more I think it's a camera. Maybe gloves.....but probably not. The raising motion tells me it's someone with a camera in their hand. About to take a picture. I really can't see where it would be anything else. I'm not making any inference. Just saying that's what I see. Don't know if it's a man or a woman. Although I'm leaning toward a man. But.....can't say for sure.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 21, 2019, 11:43:10 PM
Stablised by the amazing Mr R. Unger!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/Mt7tSlA.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/dVIlekA.gif)

    What is clear is that whoever that might be, Buell Frazier could Not miss seeing that person.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 21, 2019, 11:50:45 PM
The more I see it, the more I think it's a camera. Maybe gloves.....but probably not. The raising motion tells me it's someone with a camera in their hand. About to take a picture. I really can't see where it would be anything else. I'm not making any inference. Just saying that's what I see. Don't know if it's a man or a woman. Although I'm leaning toward a man. But.....can't say for sure.

     It also could be a pack of cigarettes, possibly held by someone wearing white gloves. People sometimes jiggle or tap a pack of cigarettes in order to get 1 cigarette to pop Up an inch or 2 above the top of the pack. They then remove that cigarette directly from the pack with their lips/mouth. The stabilization would rule out a purse with a strap. And we are assuming this is the same person. I am Not positive this is the same person.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 22, 2019, 06:26:12 AM
    What is clear is that whoever that might be, Buell Frazier could Not miss seeing that person.

True! Thumb1:

When the late Mr G. Mack showed him Prayer Man a few years back, the best he could offer was 'Bill Shelley?' A rather eyebrows-raising response, to say the least!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 22, 2019, 06:29:23 AM

"Prayer (Wo)Man" is definitely NOT Lee Harvey Oswald. Even Oswald himself confirmed that fact [when, at 7:55 PM CST on 11/22/63, he said to the press that he was inside the building when JFK was being shot]." -- DVP; September 18, 2015

Looks like you're going to need to update your thinking in the light of the new evidence, Mr von Pein!

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

There is only one place that can be described as "in the building" yet "outside"
--------------the roofed front entranceway.

A.K.A. The Place Where Prayer Man Is Standing.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: David Von Pein on February 22, 2019, 06:41:39 AM
There is only one place that can be described as "in the building" yet "outside"
--------------the roofed front entranceway.

A.K.A. The Place Where Prayer Man Is Standing.  Thumb1:


No one who is standing on any of these steps would be INSIDE the building. That's crazy talk. Nor could anyone who was standing on these steps possibly think they were still INSIDE the building. All of the steps are OUTSIDE the front door, in the open air....


(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xMASHuENDuQ/T07-Ortw7TI/AAAAAAAAF4Q/Y63uJHUInzo/s1000/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Building.jpg)


http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1052.html

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 22, 2019, 07:17:55 AM

No one who is standing on any of these steps would be INSIDE the building.

Mr Oswald never said "I was INSIDE the building". He merely confirmed the reporter's "in the building". And, thanks to Hosty's notes, we now know exactly which part of the building he meant: the front entranceway.

You think the front entrance steps belong to the street rather than the building?  ::)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: David Von Pein on February 22, 2019, 07:47:46 AM
Mr Oswald never said "I was INSIDE the building". He merely confirmed the reporter's "in the building". And, thanks to Hosty's notes, we now know exactly which part of the building he meant: the front entranceway.

You think the front entrance steps belong to the street rather than the building?  ::)

No, but if I was on those steps, I most certainly would not consider myself to be IN the building. I would consider myself to be OUTSIDE the confines of the building---because I would, indeed, be OUTSIDE the confines of said structure AND OUTSIDE the front door.

(Why on Earth is this even a debatable point? It's not.)

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xMASHuENDuQ/T07-Ortw7TI/AAAAAAAAF4Q/Y63uJHUInzo/s5000/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Building.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 22, 2019, 08:11:31 AM
No, but if I was on those steps, I most certainly would not consider myself to be IN the building. I would consider myself to be OUTSIDE the confines of the building---because I would, indeed, be OUTSIDE the confines of said structure AND OUTSIDE the front door.

(Why on Earth is this even a debatable point? It's not.)

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xMASHuENDuQ/T07-Ortw7TI/AAAAAAAAF4Q/Y63uJHUInzo/s5000/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Building.jpg)

Oh but it's not a debatable point anymore, Mr von Pein. We now have two statements from Mr Oswald as to his whereabouts.

1) Agent Hosty makes it perfectly clear that Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he "went outside to watch P. Parade".
2) Mr Oswald confirmed to the reporter that he was "in the building at the time".

The front entranceway is outside, yet it is still within the building.

Had Mr Oswald gone down into the street, he would have answered the reporter's question with "No, I was out in the street." Not complicated!

Mr Oswald has helpfully given us his precise location for the assassination. That this location was a disaster for Captain Fritz and Co. explains why Mr Oswald's claim was suppressed. That the location is a disaster for your beloved Lone Nut fairytale is neither my fault nor my problem!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: David Von Pein on February 22, 2019, 08:31:27 AM
1) Agent Hosty makes it perfectly clear that Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he "went outside to watch P. Parade".
2) Mr Oswald confirmed to the reporter that he was "in the building at the time".

It's typical of a CTer to take two things that are totally contradictory in nature (the 2 things Mr. Ford cites above) and try to make them things that are perfectly compatable and in-sync with one another. But, of course, they're not.

Go to Billy Lovelady's testimony or Buell Frazier's (or anyone else's).....and see if they describe the steps/landing as being a place that is INSIDE the Depository Building.

And then let's go ask Buell Wesley Frazier if he was INSIDE or OUTSIDE the building when he watched the motorcade on 11/22/63.

What do you think would be Buell's answer to such an inquiry?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Howsley on February 22, 2019, 08:39:03 AM
Those people who were on the steps outside the building were ... well, outside the building. Any other interpretation is just plain silly.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 22, 2019, 08:55:22 AM
It's typical of a CTer to take two things that are totally contradictory in nature (the 2 things Mr. Ford cites above) and try to make them things that are perfectly compatable and in-sync with one another. But, of course, they're not.

Go to Billy Lovelady's testimony or Buell Frazier's (or anyone else's).....and see if they describe the steps/landing as being a place that is INSIDE the Depository Building.

And then let's go ask Buell Wesley Frazier if he was INSIDE or OUTSIDE the building when he watched the motorcade on 11/22/63.

What do you think would be Buell's answer to such an inquiry?

"On November 22, 1963 at approximately 12 :25,PM I stood by myself on the inside of the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository Building to watch President John F . Kennedy come by the building in a motorcade."

Question! Where was the individual who used these words?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Howsley on February 22, 2019, 09:13:45 AM
Roy Edward Lewis

Now where do I collect my prize?  ;D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: David Von Pein on February 22, 2019, 09:17:22 AM
Those people who were on the steps outside the building were ... well, outside the building. Any other interpretation is just plain silly.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: David Von Pein on February 22, 2019, 09:26:36 AM
"On November 22, 1963 at approximately 12:25 PM I stood by myself on the inside of the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository Building to watch President John F. Kennedy come by the building in a motorcade."

Now let's go ask Mr. Lewis this specific question....

Mr. Lewis, were you inside the TSBD Building or outside the building when you heard those shots fired on November 22, 1963?

What do you suppose Mr. Lewis' answer would be to that question?

And when Lewis used the words "inside of the front entrance", he wasn't implying that he was located INSIDE the actual building. I would say that he was trying to imply that he was inside the little alcove or recessed area of the entryway in front of the Depository.

When I first read Lewis' statement above, I had deduced that Lewis was probably located just inside the front door of the Depository---on the INSIDE of that door, NORTH of the glass, not south of the glass door. That's certainly one way to interpret Lewis' words in that statement anyway, because I did initially interpret them that way, but now I think he probably said "inside" because he meant inside the recessed entranceway.

In any event, in Lewis' March 18, 1964, statement quoted above, he certainly is not implying that he thought he was located INSIDE the actual Depository building itself on Nov. 22nd. (IMHO.)

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11104&relPageId=61
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 22, 2019, 02:48:32 PM
Now let's go ask Mr. Lewis this specific question....

Mr. Lewis, were you inside the TSBD Building or outside the building when you heard those shots fired on November 22, 1963?

What do you suppose Mr. Lewis' answer would be to that question?

No need to suppose, Mr von Pein! Mr Lewis was outside on the front steps. His ambiguous use of the word 'inside' merely required clarification.

Now! Had Mr Oswald been asked a clarificatory question by the reporter, he would have given a clarificatory answer: front steps of the building.

Thankfully, his claimed whereabouts are no longer a matter of opinion or claim/counter-claim:

---------bought a coke in the 2nd fl lunchroom before the motorcade
---------went outside to watch the Presidential Parade.

Your attempts to explain away the Hosty note, which exposes the lies told in the official interrogation reports, are just comical!

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 22, 2019, 03:07:45 PM
No, but if I was on those steps, I most certainly would not consider myself to be IN the building. I would consider myself to be OUTSIDE the confines of the building---because I would, indeed, be OUTSIDE the confines of said structure AND OUTSIDE the front door.

(Why on Earth is this even a debatable point? It's not.)

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xMASHuENDuQ/T07-Ortw7TI/AAAAAAAAF4Q/Y63uJHUInzo/s5000/Texas-School-Book-Depository-Building.jpg)

    A person walks through an Open Door and there is Now nothing between them and Mother Nature = OUTSIDE
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 22, 2019, 08:30:26 PM
    A person walks through an Open Door and there is Now nothing between them and Mother Nature = OUTSIDE

Exactly--this is what Mr Oswald meant when he told Captain Fritz he had gone "outside to watch P. Parade"  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Howsley on February 22, 2019, 08:52:19 PM
It's typical of a CTer to take two things that are totally contradictory in nature (the 2 things Mr. Ford cites above) and try to make them things that are perfectly compatable and in-sync with one another. But, of course, they're not.

Go to Billy Lovelady's testimony or Buell Frazier's (or anyone else's).....and see if they describe the steps/landing as being a place that is INSIDE the Depository Building.

And then let's go ask Buell Wesley Frazier if he was INSIDE or OUTSIDE the building when he watched the motorcade on 11/22/63.

What do you think would be Buell's answer to such an inquiry?
  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 22, 2019, 10:45:37 PM
  Thumb1:

Apparently Dirty Harvey watched the parade, alright.
Well, at least until he was satisfied with what he saw.
Or so I hear...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Howsley on February 22, 2019, 11:15:37 PM
Apparently Dirty Harvey watched the parade, alright.
Well, at least until he was satisfied with what he saw.
Or so I hear...
As someone said elsewhere he watched the parade through iron sights.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 23, 2019, 04:32:19 AM
As someone said elsewhere he watched the parade through iron sights.

He had his sights set on watching the parade
(Well at least out to the battlefield-fixed* 230m)

@Newbies
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html

"I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very intelligent approach for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically fool proof. The Italians must have realized with the M38 models that nearly all small arms engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed sights with a 200 meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier under stress, who was probably a poor judge of distance to begin with. The soldier would have had to do nothing but point and shoot at the middle of his enemy for ranges out to 220 ? 230 meters. How much more simple and effective could it have been made"----Dave Emary
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: David Von Pein on February 23, 2019, 05:53:55 AM

From WCR, p.627 --- https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0326a.htm

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hnd95JCYvrU/XHDQD83R0PI/AAAAAAABQ1Q/BFlGpV3Mk-YwjunP3hNoGRVTQgW9y-roACLcBGAs/s660/Excerpt-From-Report-Of-Thomas-Kelley.png)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 23, 2019, 09:51:27 AM
From WCR, p.627 --- https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0326a.htm

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hnd95JCYvrU/XHDQD83R0PI/AAAAAAABQ1Q/BFlGpV3Mk-YwjunP3hNoGRVTQgW9y-roACLcBGAs/s660/Excerpt-From-Report-Of-Thomas-Kelley.png)

Mr von Pein thinks that the way to prove that the official interrogation reports didn't lie about Mr Oswald's claimed alibi is to offer a quote from one of the official interrogation reports!  ::)

Meanwhile, back in the real world-------

(https://i.imgur.com/bEXuLJC.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: David Von Pein on February 23, 2019, 11:51:21 AM
So Thomas J. Kelley lied in his "official report" too, eh Alan?

How many liars are there in this case, Al? Or can you count that high?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 23, 2019, 01:18:31 PM
So Thomas J. Kelley lied in his "official report" too, eh Alan?

How many liars are there in this case, Al? Or can you count that high?

Mr von Pein thinks that the way to show there was no cover-up is to argue that a cover-up would have involved things being covered up!  ::)

Mr von Pein is not doing very well here, is he, friends? His response to the new evidence amounts to a cry of, 'Please everyone, be as gullible as I am! Open your hearts to the official story as I have opened mine all these years, and don't let any nasty facts get in the way of your love!'

Now!

Let's talk about lying, shall we?

Here's what Agent Hosty wrote down:

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

And here's what Agent Hosty told the Warren Commission:

"Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch."
----------This sentence reflects his handwritten notes!  Thumb1:

"He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building."
----------This sentence does not reflect his handwritten notes! It a straightforward lie.  >:(

Nothing Mr von Pein or any other member of the Lone Nutter Brains Trust says can distract the rest of us from seeing the glaring discrepancy between Agent Hosty's statements.

So----------------Why did Agent Hosty-----------along with Captain Fritz & Co.------------lie about Mr Oswald's answer to the single most important question put to him in interrogation ('Where were you when the President passed the building')?

Answer that question with a measure of good old-fashioned common sense, friends, and you will understand the significance of the Prayer Man figure.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 23, 2019, 02:39:26 PM
Theory!

The so-called 'Hosty notes' that Mr B. Kamp has 'discovered' were not written by Agent Hosty.

Sample A: From Agent Hosty's contemporaneous 11/22 notes:

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

Sample B: From 'Agent Hosty's' supposed '11/22' notes written on back of DPD affidavit sheet:

(https://i.imgur.com/VJ42u4L.jpg)

Uh oh, look at that 'S'.

Conclusion: Theory dead!

 :'(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 23, 2019, 02:55:50 PM
Mr Oswald (Prayer Man) in the Hughes film (make sure your monitor brightness settings are right, friends!), standing
--------------behind Mr Lovelady
--------------right beside Mr Shelley ('out with Bill Shell[e]y in front')

(https://i.imgur.com/isJdAHB.gif)

Mr Oswald (Prayer Man) in the Wiegman film

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

Mr Oswald (Prayer Man) in the Darnell film

(https://i.imgur.com/NK03tPQ.jpg)

The reason he said he went outside to watch the Presidential Parade was that he went outside to watch the Presidential Parade!

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 23, 2019, 03:04:54 PM
Mr Oswald in the Sixth Floor Window:

(https://i.imgur.com/6UziVwq.jpg)

 :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 23, 2019, 03:42:42 PM
So Thomas J. Kelley lied in his "official report" too, eh Alan?

How many liars are there in this case, Al? Or can you count that high?

     I would ask that You check the date on the Kelley Missive. Supposedly, the interrogation to which Kelley refers occurred on 11/23/63 at 10:30 AM. If we simply accept the 11/23/63 date to also be the date it was compiled, it was still composed almost 24 hours AFTER the Hosty Notes. Kelley would have therefore Known that Oswald had claimed to of been "OUTSIDE" the TSBD "Watching the P. Parade". The Kelley Report could have easily been banged out to refute Oswald's 1st interrogation that SA Hosty attended and recorded on his notes. With the Kelley Report being TYPED, who really knows Exactly when it was Concocted? The Hosty Notes being HAND WRITTEN in Hosty's  short hand scrawl, as well as being Time Stamped in that same scrawl,  carry far More Evidentiary Value than the Kelley typed out Form Letter.   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 23, 2019, 03:48:56 PM
From WCR, p.627 --- https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0326a.htm

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hnd95JCYvrU/XHDQD83R0PI/AAAAAAABQ1Q/BFlGpV3Mk-YwjunP3hNoGRVTQgW9y-roACLcBGAs/s660/Excerpt-From-Report-Of-Thomas-Kelley.png)

       Bump
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 23, 2019, 03:57:17 PM
The reason he said he went outside to watch the Presidential Parade was that he went outside to watch the Presidential Parade!

"P.Parade" = " Pre - Parade" :)
The hastily written single cursive letter "P" followed by a full stop ".", could stand for the abbreviation "Pre -"

At no time on the notes, as falsely stated regularly by the claimants, is Oswald recorded as using the word "Presidential"

There is no proof by the claimants, that the letter "P" stands for the word "Presidential"

The letter "P" could mean that Oswald is telling them that he was outside for a very short period "Before" the shooting, to view the "Pre - Parade"

"P.Parade" = " Pre - Parade" :)

Simple Really  Thumb1:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/R5kLenInxms/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 23, 2019, 04:27:39 PM
The hastily written single cursive letter "P" followed by a full stop ".", could stand for the abbreviation "Pre -"

At no time on the notes, as falsely stated regularly by the claimants, is Oswald recorded as using the word "Presidential"

There is no proof by the claimants, that the letter "P" stands for the word "Presidential"

The letter "P" could mean that Oswald is telling them that he was outside for a very short period "Before" the shooting, to view the "Pre - Parade"

"P.Parade" = " Pre - Parade" :)

Simple Really  Thumb1:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/R5kLenInxms/hqdefault.jpg)

        What Hosty Actually scribbled at Oswald's 1st interrogation at 3:15 CST on 11/22/63 Stands.  I can accept that Oswald was possibly lying when he claimed to go "OUTSIDE" the TSBD to "watch the P Parade". The Hosty Notes seriously challenge the Oswald Time Line which has been rubber stamped by many for 55+ years. Do Any of you seriously believe that Oswald made a point of being "OUTSIDE" the TSBD in order to view something called a "PRE" Parade which preceded the "Presidential" Parade? Was a "PRE" Parade listed in ANY newspaper or mentioned on a radio/TV broadcast beforehand? How would Oswald Know of an alleged "PRE" Parade? Have any of You EVER heard of, or actually attended something called a "PRE" Parade? This "PRE" Parade hokum displays the frustration of some who have locked themselves into the previously accepted Oswald time line/ itinerary.   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 23, 2019, 04:42:21 PM
What Hosty Actually scribbled at Oswald's 1st interrogation at 3:15 CST on 11/22/63 Stands.  I can accept that Oswald was possibly lying when he claimed to go "OUTSIDE" the TSBD to "watch the P Parade". The Hosty Notes seriously challenge the Oswald Time Line which has been rubber stamped by many for 55+ years. Do Any of you seriously believe that Oswald made a point of being "OUTSIDE" the TSBD in order to view something called a "PRE" Parade which preceded the "Presidential" Parade? Was a "PRE" Parade listed in ANY newspaper or mentioned on a radio/TV broadcast beforehand? How would Oswald Know of an alleged "PRE" Parade? Have any of You EVER heard of, or actually attended something called a "PRE" Parade? This "PRE" Parade hokum displays the frustration of some who have locked themselves into the previously accepted Oswald time line/ itinerary.   

I thought my "P" point would have been obvious to the reader, any reader of my post, never mind. :o

Brian will get it  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 23, 2019, 05:01:51 PM
I thought my "P" point would have been obvious to the reader, any reader of my post, never mind. :o

Brian will get it  Thumb1:

Well played, Mr MacRae!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 23, 2019, 05:13:08 PM

The reason he said he went outside to watch the Presidential Parade was that he went outside to watch the Presidential Parade!

Thumb1:

Now!

Here is Officer Baker in the Darnell film.
------------We see his ungloved right hand go to his hip holster as he runs
------------By the time he is reaching Mr Truly's position, his gun is in his hand

(https://i.imgur.com/ssGd9rO.gif)

In a few seconds' time, Mr Oswald (Prayer Man) will find himself confronted by a gun-toting officer shouting 'Do you work here?'. The officer is looking for someone who works here so they can show him where the stairs are!

To anyone who-------------like Mr B. Lovelady--------------hasn't noticed Mr Oswald's (Prayer Man's) presence on the steps for the motorcade, this will look like Mr Oswald is being 'stopped' by the officer as he (Mr Oswald) is making his way out of the building!

And that's exactly how the incident-that-is-hardly-an-incident will be related to the press by DPD later that day!

(https://i.imgur.com/ZteXsV9.jpg)

 Thumb1:



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 23, 2019, 08:50:10 PM
     
                   - SA HOSTY WC TESTIMONY -

      STERN - "Did you retain The NOTES of this?"

      HOSTY - "NO. After the interview is reduced, I get it back & proofread it. My NOTES are then Destroyed because THIS is the RECORD.

      STERN - "And in this Particular instance did YOU Destroy your NOTES of this?"

      HOSTY - "YES, sir"

      STERN - "Do YOU Recall SPECIFICALLY Destroying the NOTES of your Interview?"

      HOSTY - "YES, sir in the wastebasket."

              The Hosty Notes were transformed into an FBI Report after LBJ and J Edgar had concocted their Oswald/1 shooter from the 6th floor scenario. This same FBI Report would have also been composed AFTER Oswald was Dead. (No Refutation). Hosty's FBI Report along with his WC testimony were tailored to be in line with the LN party line. The recently discovered Hosty Notes which were recorded on 11/22/63 refute Hosty's FBI Report and his WC Testimony.   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 23, 2019, 09:13:38 PM
     
                   - SA HOSTY WC TESTIMONY -

      STERN - "Did you retain The NOTES of this?"

      HOSTY - "NO. After the interview is reduced, I get it back & proofread it. My NOTES are then Destroyed because THIS is the RECORD.

      STERN - "And in this Particular instance did YOU Destroy your NOTES of this?"

      HOSTY - "YES, sir"

      STERN - "Do YOU Recall SPECIFICALLY Destroying the NOTES of your Interview?"

      HOSTY - "YES, sir in the wastebasket."

              The Hosty Notes were transformed into an FBI Report after LBJ and J Edgar had concocted their Oswald/1 shooter from the 6th floor scenario. This same FBI Report would have also been composed AFTER Oswald was Dead. (No Refutation). Hosty's FBI Report along with his WC testimony were tailored to be in line with the LN party line. The recently discovered Hosty Notes which were recorded on 11/22/63 refute Hosty's FBI Report and his WC Testimony.   

 Thumb1:

Speaking of typed-up reports!

Has anyone here ever seen the original signed versions of the March '63 FBI interview reports collected in Commission Exhibit 1381?

(https://i.imgur.com/XOqu0ex.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Dale Nason on February 24, 2019, 12:40:13 AM
Can anyone tell me where " Fritz" wrote down or saved, or kept any notes from his interrogation of LHO?  I need verifiable information that he did this. Not being a troll. Just have to have proof that he had been able to establish that he EVER kept actual notes. I'm not talking about testimony ?..just proof that he kept notes.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 24, 2019, 05:28:34 AM
So Thomas J. Kelley lied in his "official report" too, eh Alan?

How many liars are there in this case, Al? Or can you count that high?

Liars ,and and even perjurers , according to Alan Ford

1.  Marion Baker
2.  Roy Truly
3.  Jeraldean Reid (AKA Mrs. Robert Reid)
4.  Will Fritz
5.  James Bookhout
6.  James Hosty
7.  Thomas Kelley
8.  Sarah Stanton
9.  Richard E. Harrison (The FBI agent who interviewed Carolyn Arnold on 11/26/63


I believe we can add Karen Westbrook to that list as well.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Howsley on February 24, 2019, 06:01:45 AM
Liars ,and and even perjurers , according to Alan Ford

1.  Marion Baker
2.  Roy Truly
3.  Jeraldean Reid (AKA Mrs. Robert Reid)
4.  Will Fritz
5.  James Bookhout
6.  James Hosty
7.  Thomas Kelley
8.  Sarah Stanton
9.  Richard E. Harrison (The FBI agent who interviewed Carolyn Arnold on 11/26/63


I believe we can add Karen Westbrook to that list as well.

Strange. I don't see Lee Harvey Oswald on that list. Oh, sorry, Oswald's the only one telling the truth.  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 24, 2019, 06:42:34 AM
Strange. I don't see Lee Harvey Oswald on that list. Oh, sorry, Oswald's the only one telling the truth.  :D

CT trial judge: How do you plead, Mr. Oswald?
Mt. Oswald: I'm innocent.
CT trial judge: Okay, you can go.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on February 24, 2019, 08:02:12 AM
Can anyone tell me where " Fritz" wrote down or saved, or kept any notes from his interrogation of LHO?  I need verifiable information that he did this. Not being a troll. Just have to have proof that he had been able to establish that he EVER kept actual notes. I'm not talking about testimony ?..just proof that he kept notes.
Dale, the "rules" seem to be, everything is fake when deemed necessary, but the authenticity of "stuff" connected to no known chain of evidence is not even to be questioned if it is desperately needed with cultish intensity. You seem already to sense this hypocrisy, almost
apologizing for asking and bracing yourself in anticipation of the T word stamp being inked before it is applied to your forehead.
Truth is the red headed milkman's boy. Common sense? Fresh out, and on back order. If I sound cynical, I am satisfied I have good reason.

As Richard Dawson used to say,
Quote
The Very Best Of The Family Feud : All Star Guest Stars : Richard
https://www.amazon.com/Very-Best-Family-Feud-Petticoat/dp/B01GWC8ERA
Let's Play the Feud Richard Dawson is the original and best host of the FAMILY FEUD during it's almost thirty year run on television and this collection of ....
These quoted posts (below mine) are in chronological order. The ones following my May 5, 2016 post are not presented with links for reasons
I will leave to others to explain, but they are authentic. (I won't risk being hypocritical by ending my last sentence with, "trust me".)
Quote
Tom S. https://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-874450
May 5, 2016 at 9:01 pm
Quote
And that is why the 2nd floor encounter is not mentioned by DPD Chief Curry (or in Baker?s 1st day affidavit) because it never happened.
Vanessa, can you explain why Chief Curry did not correct the details in the question he was asked?
(You make declarations as if you do not grasp the futility of doing what you are attempting.)
Quote
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/curry1.htm
?..
Mr. MCCLOY ? There is one element I am not clear on, I may be anticipating, Mr. Rankin. But I believe we have had some testimony heretofore, that Mr.?an officer went in with Mr. Truly into the building.
Mr. CURRY ? Yes, sir.
Mr. MCCLOY ? And started to go upstairs, and they ran into Oswald on the second floor. Was that before the inspector got there?
Mr. CURRY ? Yes, sir; I am sure it was, because this officer was there at the scene.
Mr. MCCLOY ? Do you remember that officer?s name?
Mr. CURRY ? No, sir; I don?t. It is in the record.
Mr. BELIN ? It is officer M. L. Baker. He was in the motorcade.
Mr. MCCLOY ? Did M. L. Baker purport to seal off the building?
Mr. CURRY ? No, sir; he didn?t. The first officers in there were rushing up to the upper floors.
Mr. MCCLOY ? The first man who sealed the building was?-
Mr. CURRY ? I believe will be Inspector Sawyer.
Mr. MCCLOY ? Inspector Sawyer?
Mr. CURRY ? I believe he would be the first to issue orders. I could be mistaken on that but as I recall he was the first officer?.
If everyone lied, covered up, remained silent, as you accuse them, how is the task you?ve assigned yourself any less daunting than if everyone told the truth, opened up, were forthcoming? Curry supported the Baker/Truly testimony, Frazier supported Lovelady and Shelley testifying to Oswald?s absence after 12:10 pm. You do not like where this leaves you. Consider the weight of the evidence you present to the weight of the record of testimony.
Your evidence is incongruous compared to the testimony which supports other testimony and documentary evidence. Fritz testifies in support of what is attributed to him. Those who agree with you proffer notes donated by ???? attributed to Fritz that there is no evidence he ever intended anyone else to see, let alone corroborate by his own testimony.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4c0oytJa6t0/Vyvxfzh6fBI/AAAAAAAAD4g/WSb0H9ZgbIYgUyPPSc92tYj81tLbzb0-ACCo/s512/FritzDeath20Apr84.jpg)

It seems like it will take some more time for you to recognize this isn?t working for you. You are insistent. If you had the evidence required to accomplish what you?re intending, you could whisper it once or twice and still have impact you?re not now achieving.

Quote
Quote
Robert Prudhomme  Posted May 3, 2016
I am involved in a discussion with Tom Scully at jfkfacts.org regarding the handwritten notes by Capt. Will Fritz of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald. As many of you may or may not know, Fritz died in 1984 without ever revealing the existence of these notes. They first surfaced in the 1990's and were delivered, by an anonymous donor, to the ARRB where, along with the interrogation notes of the FBI's SA James Hosty, they were heralded as a major find. Later, Fritz's notes ended up at the National Archives.

Tom has taken the stand that these notes are possibly fake and, therefore, of no consequence to the case. I have tried in vain to find out if these notes were authenticated by the ARRB or by NARA; to no avail. It only makes sense Fritz's handwriting would be authenticated as his, or every crackpot and prankster across the USA would be coming up with new "evidence" daily.

Anyone know of if and  when Fritz's notes were authenticated as being in his writing?

Replied to Robert Prudhomme:
Quote
Bart Kamp Posted May 3, 2016
So now it needs to be proven that the notes are real, instead of Scully proving they are fake.

The burden is on him not on you or anyone else.

The last two weeks I have seen some serious filthy denials at JFKFacts that make David Irving look like a boy scout.

Replied to Robert Prudhomme:
Quote
Pat Speer Posted May 3, 2016
I also found the original announcement of the ARRB's acquisition of the notes in an old Forum post by Jim Root. It turns out that the ARRB had assumed these notes were notes made a few days later by Fitz while writing his report. As stated, this makes a lot of sense to me. I can't imagine a top detective cramming notes on multiple interviews onto a few small pieces of paper. I mean, why not at the very least give each interview its own piece of paper?

ARRB ACQUIRES DALLAS POLICE HOMICIDE CHIEF'S
HANDWRITTEN NOTES ON OSWALD INTERROGATION
The Assassination Records Review Board, an independent federal agency overseeing the identification, review, and release of records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, announced today that it has acquired original handwritten notes on the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald taken by the late Dallas Police Captain who was in charge of questioning the alleged presidential assassin. This is the second time that the Board has obtained previously unavailable Oswald interrogation notes made by a law enforcement official.

Dallas Police Captain J. W. "Will" Fritz, who headed the homicide and robbery bureau, was the primary interrogator of Oswald while he was in police custody from the afternoon of November 22 until the morning of November 24,1963 when Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby in the basement of the Dallas police station. The Board recently acquired the notes along with other papers and photographs found after Captain Fritz's death in 1984. The materials had been in the possession of the donor, who wishes to remain anonymous, until they were voluntarily turned over to the Board last month.

"Captain Fritz's original notes on the Oswald interrogations add depth to the primary record of what went on during the hours following the shooting of the President while Oswald was in custody," said Dr. Henry F. Graff, a member of the Review Board. "The notes are important because a stenographer was not present and no audio recording was made during the interrogation sessions."

Fritz told the Warren Commission in 1964 that he took no notes during the Oswald interrogations, but indicated that he later typed a report based on "rough notes" that were made "several days later." These notes are believed to be the ones acquired by the Review Board. They chronicle all of the key points of the Oswald interrogation, including his denials that he shot President Kennedy or owned a rifle, that he said nothing against the President and claimed that a photo of him holding a rifle was a forgery, with his head was superimposed on someone else's body. The notes end abruptly, showing the time of the last interrogation session on Sunday morning, November 24 as "10-11:15." Oswald was shot by Ruby a few minutes later.

The Fritz notes are only the second set of original handwritten notes taken on the Oswald interrogations that have surfaced in the 34 years since the assassination. Earlier this year, the Review Board announced the acquisition of handwritten notes taken during the Oswald interrogation by former FBI agent James P. Hosty, Jr.

The Fritz notes and other materials acquired by the Review Board have been transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration for inclusion in the JFK Collection, which is housed at the National Archives facility in College Park, Maryland. These materials are now available to researchers.

Copies of Fritz's handwritten notes on the Oswald interrogation sessions and a transcription of the notes are available from the Assassination Records Review Board, 600 E Street, NW, Second Floor, Washington, DC 20530; telephone number: (202) 724-0088.

In the same thread, replying to Prudhomme, Speer, and von Pein.:
Quote
Sandy Larsen Posted  May 4, 2016
.......
It pains me to say this, but the Rs in Fritz signature are way different than those in the notes.

I wonder if some people write certain letters in their signature different than usual.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 24, 2019, 11:01:40 AM
Liars ,and and even perjurers , according to Alan Ford

1.  Marion Baker
2.  Roy Truly
3.  Jeraldean Reid (AKA Mrs. Robert Reid)
4.  Will Fritz
5.  James Bookhout
6.  James Hosty
7.  Thomas Kelley
8.  Sarah Stanton
9.  Richard E. Harrison (The FBI agent who interviewed Carolyn Arnold on 11/26/63


I believe we can add Karen Westbrook to that list as well.
Strange. I don't see Lee Harvey Oswald on that list. Oh, sorry, Oswald's the only one telling the truth.  :D

CT trial judge: How do you plead, Mr. Oswald?
Mt. Oswald: I'm innocent.
CT trial judge: Okay, you can go.

Warren Gullible A: There can't have been cover-up because a cover-up would have meant lies being told!
Warren Gullible B: Right! Besides, Oswald was a liar so who cares if someone lied about what he said!
Warren Gullible C: Right! And also... uh... Oswald was a liar!

 :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 24, 2019, 11:14:27 AM
This sharp, thoughtful, elderly lady reinforces the fact that....
Bob, Oswald told everybody where he was.


Do ?prayer man? advocates think he was lying, or what?

Oswald held a news conference in which he said nothing about having an alibi or being outside the building. What?s the story, folks?


Well, you knew what I was talking about, didn?t you? Ask Google to find ?midnight press conference? and see who shows up.

Oswald talked to reporters in the hallway and privately to his mother, wife, brother, and a Dallas lawyer. There?s not a peep about an alibi in their accounts, though he did advise Marina of her right not to testify. He told a reporter, ?I?m just a patsy? but he couldn?t tell a soul, ?I was outside at the time??

IMO, secondhand newspaper accounts don?t cut it, if that?s what you?re referring to with Reid and Campbell. Campbell signed a statement saying that to the best of his recollection he never saw Oswald while he was employed at the TSBD.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&search=campbell#relPageId=668&tab=page

Meanwhile, back in the real world-------

(https://i.imgur.com/bEXuLJC.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 24, 2019, 11:46:00 AM
Meanwhile, back in the real world-------

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

Meanwhile, back in the real, real world-------
The hastily written single cursive letter "P" followed by a full stop ".", could stand for the abbreviation "Pre -"

At no time on the highlighted section of the note, is Oswald recorded as using the word "Presidential"

There is no proof by the claimants, that the letter "P" stands for the word "Presidential"

There is no proof by this Author, that the letter "P" stands for " Pre - "

The letter "P" could mean that Oswald is stating that he was outside for a very short period "Before" the shooting, to view the "Pre - Parade"

"P.Parade" = " Pre - Parade" :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 24, 2019, 12:31:04 PM
Meanwhile, back in the real, real world-------
The hastily written single cursive letter "P" followed by a full stop ".", could stand for the abbreviation "Pre -"

At no time on the highlighted section of the note, is Oswald recorded as using the word "Presidential"

There is no proof by the claimants, that the letter "P" stands for the word "Presidential"

There is no proof by this Author, that the letter "P" stands for " Pre - "

The letter "P" could mean that Oswald is stating that he was outside for a very short period "Before" the shooting, to view the "Pre - Parade"

"P.Parade" = " Pre - Parade" :)

This was very funny the first time, Mr MacRae! But diminishing returns have set in. You wouldn't want people to get the impression you're actually putting this forward as a serious suggestion!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 24, 2019, 01:19:25 PM
This was very funny the first time, Mr MacRae! But diminishing returns have set in. You wouldn't want people to get the impression you're actually putting this forward as a serious suggestion!  Thumb1:

It's not meant to be funny, and yes, I have put this forward as a serious alternative suggestion for the letter "P"

Alternative suggestion "P.Parade" = " Pre - Parade" :)

Oh, while i'm here. I am aware of how many times you have posted the "P" note excerpt.  :)

                                                                               (http://www.animatedimages.org/data/media/111/animated-arrow-image-0323.gif)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 24, 2019, 01:53:45 PM
It's not meant to be funny, and yes, I have put this forward as a serious alternative suggestion for the letter "P"

Alternative suggestion "P.Parade" = " Pre - Parade" :)

Was there a marching band at this Pre-Parade Parade?  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 24, 2019, 02:53:17 PM
Was there a marching band at this Pre-Parade Parade?  :D

No, the marching band, was at the (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/p.png) Parade.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 24, 2019, 03:00:02 PM
No, the marching band, was at the (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/p.png) Parade.

~Shrug~
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 24, 2019, 03:45:59 PM
Meanwhile, back in the real, real world-------
The hastily written single cursive letter "P" followed by a full stop ".", could stand for the abbreviation "Pre -"

At no time on the highlighted section of the note, is Oswald recorded as using the word "Presidential"

There is no proof by the claimants, that the letter "P" stands for the word "Presidential"

There is no proof by this Author, that the letter "P" stands for " Pre - "

The letter "P" could mean that Oswald is stating that he was outside for a very short period "Before" the shooting, to view the "Pre - Parade"

"P.Parade" = " Pre - Parade" :)

        "At no time on the highlighted section of the note, is Oswald recorded as using the word........................" PARADE. The 2 words belong together. * P. PARADE = PRESIDENTIAL PARADE. * R. Parade = Rose Parade.  Never, Ever heard mention of a "Pre Parade" anytime, anywhere.  Just what would an alleged "Pre Parade" entail?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 24, 2019, 04:10:23 PM
    When Hosty recorded his notes at 3:15, to my knowledge he had No Idea as to what the official party line was with regard to the assassination of JFK. I believe his Notes were taken legitimately as the Q/A transpired at the Oswald 3:15 interrogation. Being Hosty gave WC Testimony as to having "Destroyed" his Notes, and in Fact these Notes were buried/hidden for 55 years, I believe the Hosty Notes that were recovered from the National Archives are the Exact Same Notes he recorded at 3:15 on 11/22/63.

There are two sets of Hosty notes, Mr Storing.

1! The notes Agent Hosty hastily wrote as he listened in on Mr Oswald's interrogation. These contain key phrases:

(http://jfkforum.com/images/HostyInterrogationNotes.jpg)

2! The notes Agent Hosty wrote up subsequently as he prepared an interrogation report for dictation. These notes are more sentential in form:

(https://i.imgur.com/Al8yyot.jpg)

The writing is clearly from the same hand:

Sample A: contemporaneous notes:

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

Sample B: report notes written on back of DPD affidavit sheet:

(https://i.imgur.com/VJ42u4L.jpg)
 
Thumb1:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 24, 2019, 04:21:56 PM
Just what would an alleged "Pre Parade" entail?
There is no such thing as an alleged "Pre-Parade"

All "Pre-Parades" are real.

The "Pre-Parade" factually exists in time, before the forthcoming existance of the "Performing-Parade" and the "Post-Parade" periods of time.  :)


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 24, 2019, 04:29:13 PM
Friends! Now that it has been established thanks to the Hosty notes that

A!---------Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz that he bought a coke before the motorcade and subsequently went outside to watch the motorcade
B!---------both claims were suppressed by those present at his interrogation(s),

let us step back and reflect on the possible conclusions to be drawn:

Either

1. Mr Oswald was telling the truth about buying the coke before the motorcade and then going outside to watch the motorcade

or

2. Mr Oswald was lying about buying the coke before the motorcade and then going outside to watch the motorcade

or

3. Mr Oswald was telling the truth about buying the coke before the motorcade but lying about going outside to watch the motorcade

or

4. Mr Oswald was lying about buying the coke before the motorcade but telling the truth about going outside to watch the motorcade.

Now!

If one chooses Conclusion #1 above, then Fact B above explains itself.

If, on the other hand, one chooses Conclusion #2 or #3 or #4 above, then Fact B becomes a large condundrum!

Looking forward to hearing proponents of Conclusions 2-4 explaining how their preferred conclusion accounts for B!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 24, 2019, 04:39:06 PM
There is no such thing as an alleged "Pre-Parade"

All "Pre-Parades" are real.

The "Pre-Parade" factually exists in time, before the forthcoming existance of the "Performing-Parade" and the "Post-Parade" periods of time.  :)

       OK. Now I see the position you have been forced into. You are Now claiming "Pre Parade" references a period of time rather than something which can be visibly seen. The problem with this position is the Hosty Notes say "WATCH" the "P. Parade". Obviously, Oswald could not visibly "WATCH" a period of time. Nice try at trying to extricate yourself from an inescapable position.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 24, 2019, 05:02:06 PM
       OK. Now I see the position you have been forced into. You are Now claiming "Pre Parade" references a period of time rather than something which can be visibly seen. The problem with this position is the Hosty Notes say "WATCH" the "P. Parade". Obviously, Oswald could not visibly "WATCH" a period of time. Nice try at trying to extricate yourself from an inescapable position.

I have not been forced in to any position, I am just stating a simple verifiable fact related to time, and to the possible alternative significance of the meaning of the letter "P" ie, as I said previously. Oswald may have popped out very briefly to view the "Pre-Parade"






Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 24, 2019, 05:03:55 PM
I have not been forced in to any position, I am just stating a simple verifiable fact related to time, and to the possible alternative significance of the meaning of the letter "P" ie, as I said previously, Oswald may have popped out very briefly to view the "Pre-Parade"

   Again, exactly how does a person "WATCH" a period of time?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 24, 2019, 05:24:07 PM
Again, exactly how does a person "WATCH" a period of time?

A person can only view the past. Opening ones eyes is the usual method.

(https://media0.giphy.com/media/xTiTnuzNBTqvOQ4cda/giphy.gif)



   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on February 24, 2019, 06:06:08 PM
According to the FBI SA JamesPatrickHostyJr (1924-2011) WarrenCommissionTestimony, he stated that LeeHarveyOswald (1939-1963) said during an interrogation on 11/22/'63, that began at about 3:15pm, that he went to lunch at about noon on 11/22/'63, and went to the lunchroom to have lunch, and ate his lunch, and had gone and gotten a Coca-Cola from the Coca-Cola machine to have with his lunch. He (LHO) claimed that he was in the lunchroom when President Kennedy passed the building.

No need to take my word for it, as said statement can be found in the second-half, at approximately the two-thirds to three-fourths mark of the linked-to testimony:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hosty.htm

According to the linked to FBI Report, FBI SA JamesWillinghamBookhout (1914-2009) stated that during interrogation, LeeHarveyOswald (1939-1963) said that during the TSBD building search by DPD Officers, he had just purchased a Coca-Cola when he had been encountered by a PoliceOfficer, and RoyTruly, on the second floor, and went downstairs after said encounter.

No need to take my word for it, as said statement can be easily found:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 24, 2019, 07:25:52 PM
The 8 Modes of Denial

1. Hosty had dementia on 11/22/63!

2. The 'P.' in 'P. Parade' doesn't stand for 'Presidential'!

3. Oswald was a liar so it was okay for the authorities to lie about anything he said!

4. Bookhout imitated Hosty's handwriting on these notes!

5. It is wrong to claim cover-up because that means calling people liars!

6. Oswald had a cop put a gun to his gut, then heard that the President had been shot-----so he decided to go outside to watch the... Parade!

7. Oswald musta bought 2 cokes!

8. Who cares where Oswald was standing? Person X once walked the dog of Person Y who once played on a football team with Person Z's second-best friend!

You people are a scream!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 24, 2019, 07:53:46 PM
"I ran across the street to the corner of the park and ran into a girl crying and she said the President had been shot. This girl's name is Gloria Calvery who is an employee of this building. I went back to the building and went inside and called my wife and told her what happened."
(Bill Shelley, DPD affidavit 11/22)

Mr. SHELLEY - Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute [...]
Mr. BALL - You went out there and then what did you do?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, officers started running down to the railroad yards and Billy and I walked down that way.
(Warren Commission testimony, 4/7/64)

(Note: Mr Shelley had been best man at Gloria Calvery's wedding in July '63)

Question!

Why did Mr Shelley change his story?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on February 24, 2019, 08:11:37 PM
        "Scattered throughout the testimony" is Not Evidence, Documentation, or Corroboration. It is  BS:  I want to follow your point and it ends up being nothing more than an Opinion.

Continuing from my last.... proven fact, OV Campbell first wife, Clarice Marie Webb of a town of less than 8,000, had relatives in common
with Mary Germany Bledsoe.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MaryBledsoeAuntAmeriaEllenWebbObit052760.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 24, 2019, 10:43:47 PM
Friends, this is what Agent Bookhout's solo-written supplementary report has to say on the score of Mr Oswald's claims:

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. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe that there was going to be anymore work that day due to the confusion in the building.

Let's imagine, shall we, that this represents an accurate account of what Mr Oswald really told Fritz.

So! Mr Oswald is claiming that his reaction to being confronted by an officer "with pistol" drawn in the lunchroom was to go down to the 1st floor-----------but not to check out what was happening out front. Oh no! It was to get down to the important business of standing around eating his lunch. Only then ("thereafter"), once his belly was filled, did it occur to him to go outside to check out what had happened.

You may be thinking, What a crazy claim for Oswald to make! He really was a weirdo! But the real question you need to ask yourself is:

If Mr Oswald really did tell these all-but-self-incriminating things to Captain Fritz, how in the name of all that is righteous could Agent Hosty have 'misheard' or 'misremembered' Mr Oswald's words in such a way that he would feel impelled to twist them into: "Then went outside to watch P. Parade"?

As miscomprehensions or misremembrances go, this one is off the charts!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 24, 2019, 10:55:44 PM
Friends, this is what Agent Bookhout's solo-written supplementary report has to say on the score of Mr Oswald's claims:

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. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe that there was going to be anymore work that day due to the confusion in the building.

Let's imagine, shall we, that this represents an accurate account of what Mr Oswald really told Fritz.

So! Mr Oswald is claiming that his reaction to being confronted by an officer "with pistol" drawn in the lunchroom was to go down to the 1st floor-----------but not to check out what was happening out front. Oh no! It was to get down to the important business of standing around eating his lunch. Only then ("thereafter"), once his belly was filled, did it occur to him to go outside to check out what had happened.

You may be thinking, What a crazy claim for Oswald to make! He really was a weirdo! But the real question you need to ask yourself is:

If Mr Oswald really did tell these all-but-self-incriminating things to Captain Fritz, how in the name of all that is righteous could Agent Hosty have 'misheard' or 'misremembered' Mr Oswald's words in such a way that he would feel impelled to twist them into: "Then went outside to watch P. Parade"?

As miscomprehensions or misremembrances go, this one is off the charts!

By the same token!

Those who wish to read this-------

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

--------as being somehow compatible with a 2nd fl lunchroom incident with Baker need to take careful note of the words:

"returned to 1st floor to eat lunch."

To eat lunch? Exactly what Agent Bookhout's later report will have Mr Oswald explain.

Except! Here, Mr Oswald's claim actually makes perfect sense, because
-------------it clearly relates to the period before the motorcade ("Then went outside to watch P. Parade")
-------------it makes no reference whatsoever to any encounter with an officer in the 2nd fl lunchroom (an encounter that would have rendered bizarre Mr Oswald's desire to carry on as though nothing unusual were going on and just press on with his lunch).

Agent Bookhout's solo-written report tries to make a very bad liar out of Mr Oswald; Agent Hosty's notes make a very good liar out of Agent Bookhout.

Justice! Thumb1:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 12:41:52 AM
By the same token!

Those who wish to read this-------

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

--------as being somehow compatible with a 2nd fl lunchroom incident with Baker need to take careful note of the words:

"returned to 1st floor to eat lunch."

To eat lunch? Exactly what Agent Bookhout's later report will have Mr Oswald explain.

Except! Here, Mr Oswald's claim actually makes perfect sense, because
-------------it clearly relates to the period before the motorcade ("Then went outside to watch P. Parade")
-------------it makes no reference whatsoever to any encounter with an officer in the 2nd fl lunchroom (an encounter that would have rendered bizarre Mr Oswald's desire to carry on as though nothing unusual were going on and just press on with his lunch).

Agent Bookhout's solo-written report tries to make a very bad liar out of Mr Oswald; Agent Hosty's notes make a very good liar out of Agent Bookhout.

Justice! Thumb1:

Alan....Why are you presenting your ideas here on this thread?    Is your ego so inflated that you can't abandon your theory and admit that you are in error?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 12:56:52 AM
Alan....Why are you presenting your ideas here on this thread?    Is your ego so inflated that you can't abandon your theory and admit that you are in error?

Say what? Notes written by Agent Hosty are found that clearly state that Mr Oswald claimed to have gone "outside to watch the P. Parade", and I should abandon the theory that Mr Oswald went outside to watch the Presidential parade?

 ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 25, 2019, 06:02:23 AM
Friends, this is what Agent Bookhout's solo-written supplementary report has to say on the score of Mr Oswald's claims:

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. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe that there was going to be anymore work that day due to the confusion in the building.

Let's imagine, shall we, that this represents an accurate account of what Mr Oswald really told Fritz.

So! Mr Oswald is claiming that his reaction to being confronted by an officer "with pistol" drawn in the lunchroom was to go down to the 1st floor-----------but not to check out what was happening out front. Oh no! It was to get down to the important business of standing around eating his lunch. Only then ("thereafter"), once his belly was filled, did it occur to him to go outside to check out what had happened.

You may be thinking, What a crazy claim for Oswald to make! He really was a weirdo! But the real question you need to ask yourself is:

If Mr Oswald really did tell these all-but-self-incriminating things to Captain Fritz, how in the name of all that is righteous could Agent Hosty have 'misheard' or 'misremembered' Mr Oswald's words in such a way that he would feel impelled to twist them into: "Then went outside to watch P. Parade"?

As miscomprehensions or misremembrances go, this one is off the charts!

         The part I find extremely puzzling in the Bookhout supplementary report of the 3:15 Oswald Interrogation/Claims, "Mr Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the Police Officer thereafter LEFT THE ROOM AND CONTINUED THROUGH THE BUILDING". How could Oswald have Any knowledge as to where Officer Baker went after Baker exited the TSBD Lunch Room?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on February 25, 2019, 07:32:54 AM
Is Alan a liar... everyone who posts in this thread seems to be one, except you?
If there was no testimonial record and it was 1989 instead of 2019, you might not seem as unhinged.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. You are resisting mightily the roadblock of reality aka, common sense.
........

Why even believe what Oswald said, Albert?  I see you're busy getting banned in other places.  Better change them drawers!!!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 11:07:31 AM
Mr. BALL ? We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President?s car going by.
Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
Mr. FRAZIER ? No, sir; I don?t, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.
Mr. BALL ? I see.
Mr. FRAZIER ? Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.
Mr. BALL ? Do you recognize this fellow?
Mr. FRAZIER ? That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL ? Billy?
Mr. FRAZIER ? Right
Mr. BALL ? Let?s take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER ? Right.
Mr. BALL ? That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
Mr. FRAZIER ? Right.
Mr. BALL ? In front of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER ? Yes.
?..
Mr. BALL ? That is written in. The arrow marks Billy Lovelady on Commission?s Exhibit No. 369?

Wrong issue, Mr Scully!

Prayer Man cannot be seen in the Altgens photograph, but he can be seen in the Wiegman film standing to Mr Lovelady's right!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 11:47:01 AM
         The part I find extremely puzzling in the Bookhout supplementary report of the 3:15 Oswald Interrogation/Claims, "Mr Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the Police Officer thereafter LEFT THE ROOM AND CONTINUED THROUGH THE BUILDING". How could Oswald have Any knowledge as to where Officer Baker went after Baker exited the TSBD Lunch Room?

Yes, Mr Storing, it points up the contrived character of Mr Oswald's alleged claim!  Thumb1: (Compare Mrs Reid's brilliant recollection of a coke----a full coke, mind-----in Mr Oswald's hand.)

Another point of curiosity!:

If one were to read Mr Oswald's supposed words here in isolation----------

"Mr Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the Police Officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building"

----------one would gain the distinct impression that Mr Truly had been present in the lunchroom with Mr Oswald all along, and that the police officer continued on his search alone.

What makes this so curious is its resonance with what Ms Pauline Sanders told the FBI on the Sunday:

(https://i.imgur.com/igQS8aL.jpg)

Which would be a very odd error for Ms Sanders to make, given that she was out front and must surely have known that Mr Truly had been out front too and so could hardly have been inside lunching with Mr Oswald!

One assumes-------one must assume--------that the agent misunderstood Ms Sanders.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

However! I once saw it suggested on one of the forums that there was an Oswald-Officer incident in that lunchroom, but that it happened before the shooting and the officer was not Officer Baker. Mr Truly was in the lunchroom with Mr Oswald, who would have assumed this was part of a pre-parade security sweep of buildings in the area.

This is, I think, the only scenario by which Agent Bookhout's solo-written report-----

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 form 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 employee?s lunch room

------could be anything other than a lie. "[A]t the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers" would mean the supposed pre-parade security sweep of the building. (Mr Oswald being lured into a false sense of security.)

All a little too complicated for my taste though!

A much cleaner solution:

1. Mr Oswald visited the 2nd fl lunchroom before the motorcade (seen there by Ms Arnold & Ms Stanton)
2. He went back down to the 1st floor and stood around eating lunch (noticing Messrs Jarman & Norman coming in by the back door on their way to the back elevator)
3. Hearing the excitement rise outside, he hurried down to the front entrance and stepped outside (seen by the film cameras of Messrs Hughes, Wiegman & Darnell)
4. After the shooting, an officer with pistol drawn (Baker) came charging into the building and asked him if he worked there (=looking for help finding the stairs)
5. Mr Truly came up, identified himself and offered to help the officer
6. Mr Oswald told all this to Captain Fritz
7. DPD told the press all about the incident at the front entrance
8. Once it became clear just how soon after the shooting this incident had happened, it was moved away from the front entrance and near to the back stairway (this happened Friday pm)
9. Mr Oswald's actual claims were rewritten------to ludicrous effect------so as to 'corroborate' the new lunchroom incident.

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 03:23:16 PM
Yes, Mr Storing, it points up the contrived character of Mr Oswald's alleged claim!  Thumb1: (Compare Mrs Reid's brilliant recollection of a coke----a full coke, mind-----in Mr Oswald's hand.)

Another point of curiosity!:

If one were to read Mr Oswald's supposed words here in isolation----------

"Mr Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the Police Officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building"

----------one would gain the distinct impression that Mr Truly had been present in the lunchroom with Mr Oswald all along, and that the police officer continued on his search alone.

What makes this so curious is its resonance with what Ms Pauline Sanders told the FBI on the Sunday:

(https://i.imgur.com/igQS8aL.jpg)

Which would be a very odd error for Ms Sanders to make, given that she was out front and must surely have known that Mr Truly had been out front too and so could hardly have been inside lunching with Mr Oswald!

One assumes-------one must assume--------that the agent misunderstood Ms Sanders.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

However! I once saw it suggested on one of the forums that there was an Oswald-Officer incident in that lunchroom, but that it happened before the shooting and the officer was not Officer Baker. Mr Truly was in the lunchroom with Mr Oswald, who would have assumed this was part of a pre-parade security sweep of buildings in the area.

This is, I think, the only scenario by which Agent Bookhout's solo-written report-----

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 form 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 employee?s lunch room

------could be anything other than a lie. "[A]t the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers" would mean the supposed pre-parade security sweep of the building. (Mr Oswald being lured into a false sense of security.)

All a little too complicated for my taste though!

A much cleaner solution:

1. Mr Oswald visited the 2nd fl lunchroom before the motorcade (seen there by Ms Arnold & Ms Stanton)
2. He went back down to the 1st floor and stood around eating lunch (noticing Messrs Jarman & Norman coming in by the back door on their way to the back elevator)
3. Hearing the excitement rise outside, he hurried down to the front entrance and stepped outside (seen by the film cameras of Messrs Hughes, Wiegman & Darnell)
4. After the shooting, an officer with pistol drawn (Baker) came charging into the building and asked him if he worked there (=looking for help finding the stairs)
5. Mr Truly came up, identified himself and offered to help the officer
6. Mr Oswald told all this to Captain Fritz
7. DPD told the press all about the incident at the front entrance
8. Once it became clear just how soon after the shooting this incident had happened, it was moved away from the front entrance and near to the back stairway (this happened Friday pm)
9. Mr Oswald's actual claims were rewritten------to ludicrous effect------so as to 'corroborate' the new lunchroom incident.

 Thumb1:

a pre-parade security sweep of buildings in the area.

This is, I think, the only scenario by which Agent Bookhout's solo-written report-----

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 form 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 employee?s lunch room


There was no pre-parade sweep of the TSBD....  You know that Mr Ford.....  I had assumed that you were an intelligent and honest student of the case.....You are rapidly proving that you are not honest.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on February 25, 2019, 03:42:23 PM
According to the linked to FBI Report, FBI SA JamesWillinghamBookhout (1914-2009) stated that during interrogation, LeeHarveyOswald said that during the TSBD building search by DPD Officers, he had just purchased a Coca-Cola when he had been encountered by a PoliceOfficer, and RoyTruly, on the second floor, and went downstairs after said encounter.

No need to take my word for it, as said statement can be easily found:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

FBI Agent JamesWillinghamBookhout's WarrenCommissionTestimony:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bookhout.htm
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 03:50:28 PM
FBI Agent JamesWillinghamBookhout's WarrenCommissionTestimony:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bookhout.htm

At the time that Baker confronted Lee in the second floor lunchroom Lee had no idea what was happening.   When he was asked where he was when the police searched the building he assumed that's what was happening when Baker confronted him.   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 25, 2019, 04:02:42 PM
At the time that Baker confronted Lee in the second floor lunchroom Lee had no idea what was happening.   When he was asked where he was when the police searched the building he assumed that's what was happening when Baker confronted him.

    And How would You Know Oswald's frame of mind at that point in time?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 04:36:12 PM
    And How would You Know Oswald's frame of mind at that point in time?

Simply by reading the reports .... Both Baker and Truly reported that Lee was a bit startled at seeing the cop with his motorcycle helmet on and his revolver in his hand.

Do you doubt that this sudden appearance of Baker and Truly caused Lee to wonder what the hell is happening?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 25, 2019, 05:37:38 PM
Simply by reading the reports .... Both Baker and Truly reported that Lee was a bit startled at seeing the cop with his motorcycle helmet on and his revolver in his hand.

Do you doubt that this sudden appearance of Baker and Truly caused Lee to wonder what the hell is happening?

     The discussion Specifically was about the TSBD having possibly been subjected to a PRE-Parade Security Sweep & Oswald being shook down inside the Break Room BEFORE the Motorcade went by the TSBD.  This shake down would have Not involved Officer Baker. You are joining the discussion late.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 06:55:27 PM
     The discussion Specifically was about the TSBD having possibly been subjected to a PRE-Parade Security Sweep & Oswald being shook down inside the Break Room BEFORE the Motorcade went by the TSBD.  This shake down would have Not involved Officer Baker. You are joining the discussion late.

There was no pre-parade shakedown of the TSBD.....

C'mon Royell....Don't get swept up in this BS.....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 25, 2019, 07:04:39 PM
There was no pre-parade shakedown of the TSBD.....

C'mon Royell....Don't get swept up in this BS.....

   Did Not say I bought into it, just that was what was being discussed. It tied into Oswald being inside the Lunch Room PRIOR to exiting the TSBD to view the "P. Parade" per the Hosty Notes.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 07:11:47 PM
a pre-parade security sweep of buildings in the area.

This is, I think, the only scenario by which Agent Bookhout's solo-written report-----

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 form 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 employee?s lunch room


There was no pre-parade sweep of the TSBD....  You know that Mr Ford.....  I had assumed that you were an intelligent and honest student of the case.....You are rapidly proving that you are not honest.

You are rapidly proving that you are not capable of reading. Wind your neck in.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 07:19:05 PM
   Did Not say I bought into it, just that was what was being discussed. It tied into Oswald being inside the Lunch Room PRIOR to exiting the TSBD to view the "P. Parade" per the Hosty Notes.

The notes that Mr Ford posted were NOT written by James Hosty.....Those notes that Ford posted were the notes of James Bookhout....
And Bookout typed the same words verbatim in his report ....except he corrected that part about going out to watch the P. Parade ..


His report is presented on page 613 of the WR.    Bookhout wrote.... "He claimed that he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine is located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed that he was on the first floor when President Kennedy PASSED BY the building."

Read Bookhout's scribbled notes and notice that his typed report uses the same words as the notes...EXCEPT for that last sentence.   

At the time he typed the report he had learned that Lee DID NOT go out to watch the P. Parade......

"He went to second floor to get a Coca-Cola to eat with lunch and returned to first floor to eat lunch."[/i---   We don't know if Lee started eating his lunch immediately, or perhaps looked at the newspaper for a few minutes before opening his lunch sack.....But since Hosty wrote that he went to the second floor lunchroom to buy a coke to drink with his lunch we must assume that he bought the coke BEFORE eating his lunch.  and THEN AFTER buying the coke he returned to the Domino Room and ate his lunch and drank the Coca Cola.

'He then went outside to watch the President's parade".....   We know that this chronology is contradictory to the notes that Hosty himself published in his book Assignment: Oswald ....  ( Those notes are posted in this thread...see link below)

And by 99% of the accounts....Baker and Truly encountered Lee in the second floor lunchroom after he'd bought the coke ......

What say you?

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

(http://jfkforum.com/images/HostyInterrogationNotes.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 07:21:13 PM
   Did Not say I bought into it, just that was what was being discussed. It tied into Oswald being inside the Lunch Room PRIOR to exiting the TSBD to view the "P. Parade" per the Hosty Notes.

IIRC, the theory was that Messrs Oswald and Truly were not alone in the lunchroom when the 'officer' came in. Mrs Reid was suggested as one of those who saw the incident. Hence (again: according to the theory) the strange request in September 1964 that Mr Truly and Officer Baker give statements clarifying that no one had been in the lunchroom other than Mr Oswald.

Make of it what you will, Mr Storing!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 07:23:44 PM
The notes that Mr Ford posted were NOT written by James Hosty.....Those notes that Ford posted were the notes of James Bookhout....
And Bookout typed the same words verbatim in his report ....except he corrected that part about going out to watch the P. Parade ..


His report is presented on page 613 of the WR.    Bookhout wrote.... "He claimed that he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine is located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed that he was on the first floor when President Kennedy PASSED BY the building."



It has been pointed out to you that the quoted words come from the joint Hosty-Bookhout report, and yet here you are misrepresenting a basic fact all over again.

V. dishonest!  :(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 07:30:23 PM
It has been pointed out to you that the quoted words come from the joint Hosty-Bookhout report, and yet here you are misrepresenting a basic fact all over again.

V. dishonest!  :(

The scribbled Notes are written by Bookhout.....The typed up report was typed by Bookhout....He used HIS notes ....but corrected the erronous entery about Lee going out to watch the P. Parade.  ( which by the way doesn't even make sense)    IOW it's NONSENSE!

"He went to second floor to get a Coca-Cola to eat with lunch and returned to first floor to eat lunch."[/i---   We don't know if Lee started eating his lunch immediately, or perhaps looked at the newspaper for a few minutes before opening his lunch sack.....But since Hosty wrote that he went to the second floor lunchroom to buy a coke to drink with his lunch we must assume that he bought the coke BEFORE eating his lunch.  and THEN AFTER buying the coke he returned to the Domino Room and ate his lunch and drank the Coca Cola.

'He then went outside to watch the President's parade".....   We know that this chronology is contradictory to the notes that Hosty himself published in his book Assignment: Oswald ....  ( Those notes are posted in this thread...see link below)

And by 99% of the accounts....Baker and Truly encountered Lee in the second floor lunchroom after he'd bought the coke ......

What say you?

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

(http://jfkforum.com/images/HostyInterrogationNotes.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 07:41:39 PM
The scribbled Notes are written by Bookhout.....The typed up report was typed by Bookhout....He used HIS notes ....but corrected the erronous entery about Lee going out to watch the P. Parade.  ( which by the way doesn't even make sense)    IOW it's NONSENSE!

"He went to second floor to get a Coca-Cola to eat with lunch and returned to first floor to eat lunch."[/i---   We don't know if Lee started eating his lunch immediately, or perhaps looked at the newspaper for a few minutes before opening his lunch sack.....But since Hosty wrote that he went to the second floor lunchroom to buy a coke to drink with his lunch we must assume that he bought the coke BEFORE eating his lunch.  and THEN AFTER buying the coke he returned to the Domino Room and ate his lunch and drank the Coca Cola.

'He then went outside to watch the President's parade".....   We know that this chronology is contradictory to the notes that Hosty himself published in his book Assignment: Oswald ....  ( Those notes are posted in this thread...see link below)

And by 99% of the accounts....Baker and Truly encountered Lee in the second floor lunchroom after he'd bought the coke ......

What say you?

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

(http://jfkforum.com/images/HostyInterrogationNotes.jpg)

Good grief, Mr Cakebread!

You asked me this exact question on the other thread, and I gave you a long answer, which you followed up with an incorrect claim, which I politely corrected.

And now here you are, cluelessly recycling your garbage.

Lord preserve us from the idiot wing of the CT movement!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 25, 2019, 07:45:06 PM
The scribbled Notes are written by Bookhout.....The typed up report was typed by Bookhout....He used HIS notes ....but corrected the erronous entery about Lee going out to watch the P. Parade.  ( which by the way doesn't even make sense)    IOW it's NONSENSE!

"He went to second floor to get a Coca-Cola to eat with lunch and returned to first floor to eat lunch."[/i---   We don't know if Lee started eating his lunch immediately, or perhaps looked at the newspaper for a few minutes before opening his lunch sack.....But since Hosty wrote that he went to the second floor lunchroom to buy a coke to drink with his lunch we must assume that he bought the coke BEFORE eating his lunch.  and THEN AFTER buying the coke he returned to the Domino Room and ate his lunch and drank the Coca Cola.

'He then went outside to watch the President's parade".....   We know that this chronology is contradictory to the notes that Hosty himself published in his book Assignment: Oswald ....  ( Those notes are posted in this thread...see link below)

And by 99% of the accounts....Baker and Truly encountered Lee in the second floor lunchroom after he'd bought the coke ......

What say you?

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

(http://jfkforum.com/images/HostyInterrogationNotes.jpg)

       Let's back up the truck. Just because something has been Omitted or Changed, ("P. Parade") does Not mean it has been "corrected" as You claim.
       I am assuming that Oswald went DOWN to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room at Noon/lunchtime to get his soda pop. If this is the case how does he then, "RETURNED to the 1st floor to eat lunch" as we see in the Hosty Notes. If it is true that Oswald was Returning to the 1st Floor, it appears we are missing a piece of Oswald's lunchtime itinerary.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 07:48:03 PM
       Let's back up the truck. Just because something has been Omitted or Changed, ("P. Parade") does Not mean it has been "corrected" as You claim.
       I am assuming that Oswald went DOWN to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room at Noon/lunchtime to get his soda pop. If this is the case how does he then, "RETURNED to the 1st floor to eat lunch" as we see in the Hosty Notes. If it is true that Oswald was Returning to the 1st Floor, it appears we are missing a piece of Oswald's lunchtime itinerary.

Mr. BALL. Was that the last time you saw him?
Mr. PIPER. Just at 12 o'clock.
Mr. BALL. Where were you at 12 o'clock?
Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 25, 2019, 07:49:51 PM
Yes, Mr Storing, it points up the contrived character of Mr Oswald's alleged claim!  Thumb1: (Compare Mrs Reid's brilliant recollection of a coke----a full coke, mind-----in Mr Oswald's hand.)

Another point of curiosity!:

If one were to read Mr Oswald's supposed words here in isolation----------

"Mr Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the Police Officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building"

----------one would gain the distinct impression that Mr Truly had been present in the lunchroom with Mr Oswald all along, and that the police officer continued on his search alone.

What makes this so curious is its resonance with what Ms Pauline Sanders told the FBI on the Sunday:

(https://i.imgur.com/igQS8aL.jpg)

Which would be a very odd error for Ms Sanders to make, given that she was out front and must surely have known that Mr Truly had been out front too and so could hardly have been inside lunching with Mr Oswald!

One assumes-------one must assume--------that the agent misunderstood Ms Sanders.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

However! I once saw it suggested on one of the forums that there was an Oswald-Officer incident in that lunchroom, but that it happened before the shooting and the officer was not Officer Baker. Mr Truly was in the lunchroom with Mr Oswald, who would have assumed this was part of a pre-parade security sweep of buildings in the area.

This is, I think, the only scenario by which Agent Bookhout's solo-written report-----

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 form 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 employee?s lunch room

------could be anything other than a lie. "[A]t the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers" would mean the supposed pre-parade security sweep of the building. (Mr Oswald being lured into a false sense of security.)

All a little too complicated for my taste though!

A much cleaner solution:

1. Mr Oswald visited the 2nd fl lunchroom before the motorcade (seen there by Ms Arnold & Ms Stanton)
2. He went back down to the 1st floor and stood around eating lunch (noticing Messrs Jarman & Norman coming in by the back door on their way to the back elevator)
3. Hearing the excitement rise outside, he hurried down to the front entrance and stepped outside (seen by the film cameras of Messrs Hughes, Wiegman & Darnell)
4. After the shooting, an officer with pistol drawn (Baker) came charging into the building and asked him if he worked there (=looking for help finding the stairs)
5. Mr Truly came up, identified himself and offered to help the officer
6. Mr Oswald told all this to Captain Fritz
7. DPD told the press all about the incident at the front entrance
8. Once it became clear just how soon after the shooting this incident had happened, it was moved away from the front entrance and near to the back stairway (this happened Friday pm)
9. Mr Oswald's actual claims were rewritten------to ludicrous effect------so as to 'corroborate' the new lunchroom incident.

 Thumb1:


Whenever you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 5'3" height of Prayer Person is explained by either "leaning", "stepping down with one leg" , then that would be great.


By logical speculation :the reason for Oswald to have returned thru the front door BEFORE Baker and Truly, is because Oswald needed to get his jacket. 3 places most probable to have left his jacket, are 1. the storage room by the front staircase. 2. the Domino room. 3. the 2nd floor lunchroom.


If this premise is correct, then the meeting of Oswald by Baker could be  1. in the front lobby after passing by the front storage room and Oswald comes out. 2. In the Domino room as Baker and Truly pass by it, and Oswald comes out. 3. In the 2nd floor lunchroom, Oswald having gone up the front staircase, and was on the 2nd half of the staircase, thus out of LOS of Baker and Truly when they entered the front lobby. Oswald reaches the 2nd floor lunchroom via outer hallway or going thru the 2nd floor office, and is in the 2nd floor lunchroom about 10 sec before Baker/Truly arrive 2nd floor landing using rear staircase.


The hypothetical scenario option is that Oswald went to the storage room because:


A. Its the closest place to have suddenly been out of sight in only 5 seconds entering the lobby. Going across the lobby in only 5 seconds also could have been missed being seen by Eddie Piper and Troy West, since the lobby is blocked from LOS to where Piper and West were standing on the 1st floor on the other side of the office area.

B. going up the front staircase, and using the hallway or 2nd floor office to get to the 2nd floor lunchroom is in conflict with Geneva Hine being in the hallway and also entering the office in the 40 to 60 sec post shot range of time.


C. going across the lobby, opening the 2nd set of doors, getting thru the locked counter top office area, and then acoss another 50 ft approx to reach Domino room, unseen, not only by Baker and Truly entering lobby just 5 to 10 second after Oswald, PLUS the presence of Eddie Piper and Troy West on the 1st floor over about midway and with LOS to Domino room, the 1st floor office area, the rear elevators and rear stairs, makes this option less probable.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 07:52:32 PM

B. going up the front staircase, and using the hallway or 2nd floor office to get to the 2nd floor lunchroom is in conflict with Geneva Hine being in the hallway and also entering the office in the 40 to 60 sec post shot range of time.

Great! Now apply this logic to Mrs Reid's claims  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 25, 2019, 07:58:06 PM

Whenever you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 5'3" height of Prayer Person is explained by either "leaning", "stepping down with one leg" , then that would be great.


By logical speculation :the reason for Oswald to have returned thru the front door BEFORE Baker and Truly, is because Oswald needed to get his jacket. 3 places most probable to have left his jacket, are 1. the storage room by the front staircase. 2. the Domino room. 3. the 2nd floor lunchroom.


If this premise is correct, then the meeting of Oswald by Baker could be  1. in the front lobby after passing by the front storage room and Oswald comes out. 2. In the Domino room as Baker and Truly pass by it, and Oswald comes out. 3. In the 2nd floor lunchroom, Oswald having gone up the front staircase, and was on the 2nd half of the staircase, thus out of LOS of Baker and Truly when they entered the front lobby. Oswald reaches the 2nd floor lunchroom via outer hallway or going thru the 2nd floor office, and is in the 2nd floor lunchroom about 10 sec before Baker/Truly arrive 2nd floor landing using rear staircase.


The hypothetical scenario option is that Oswald went to the storage room because:


A. Its the closest place to have suddenly been out of sight in only 5 seconds entering the lobby. Going across the lobby in only 5 seconds also could have been missed being seen by Eddie Piper and Troy West, since the lobby is blocked from LOS to where Piper and West were standing on the 1st floor on the other side of the office area.

B. going up the front staircase, and using the hallway or 2nd floor office to get to the 2nd floor lunchroom is in conflict with Geneva Hine being in the hallway and also entering the office in the 40 to 60 sec post shot range of time.


C. going across the lobby, opening the 2nd set of doors, getting thru the locked counter top office area, and then acoss another 50 ft approx to reach Domino room, unseen, not only by Baker and Truly entering lobby just 5 to 10 second after Oswald, PLUS the presence of Eddie Piper and Troy West on the 1st floor over about midway and with LOS to Domino room, the 1st floor office area, the rear elevators and rear stairs, makes this option less probable.

     If Oswald used the front staircase as you say, and then enters the Break Room 10 seconds ahead of Officer Baker, how would Baker see him through that small window on the door leading to the Vestibule? (As testified to by Baker). Do you generally believe the Baker story of seeing Oswald through that Vestibule door window is BS?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 08:05:04 PM
Mr. BELIN - Did you see anyone else on the first floor while you were eating your lunch? Anyone else at all did you see on the first floor?
Mr. WEST - It wasn't anybody. I didn't see anybody around at that time.
Mr. BELIN - At any time while you were making coffee or eating your lunch, did you see anyone else on the first floor?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; I didn't see.

Hear no evil, see no evil, suffer no evil!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 08:17:48 PM
Great! Now apply this logic to Mrs Reid's claims  Thumb1:

Mr. DULLES. Yes. Attorney General Carr, do you have any questions?
Mr. CARR. Mrs. Reid, have you had occasion to visit with any of Oswald's relatives, his wife or mother? [BIZARRE QUESTION A...]
Mrs. REID. No.
Mr. CARR. Have they been in there since that date to look over the premises? [AS THOUGH MR CARR HAS GOTTEN WIND THAT MRS REID COMMUNICATED SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO EITHER MRS OSWALD...]
Mrs. REID. His mother has been but I didn't see her. She didn't go any further than the first floor I understand, but I have never seen her other than these pictures.
Mr. DULLES. Is it usual for the employees of the depository to have friends visit them during office hours or would that be an unusual practice? [= QUESTION VERY-MUCH-NOT-A!]
Mrs. REID. No; that would not be unusual. Family or somebody wanted to drop by to see you they never have objected to that.
Mr. BELIN. I think the record should show we are offering in evidence this morning, Mr. Dulles, Commission Exhibit 507 which is the diagram of the seventh floor which Officer Baker testified to. [QUICK! SHUT THIS DOWN!]
Mr. DULLES. You want that admitted now?
Mr. BELIN. We want that admitted now.
Mr. DULLES. No objection. It will be admitted.
(The diagram referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 507 for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. BELIN. I think those are all the questions we have of Mrs. Reid. [PHEW!]


What on earth was Mr Carr getting at?  ???
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 25, 2019, 08:23:24 PM
Great! Now apply this logic to Mrs Reid's claims  Thumb1:


Ive already just about concluded at least for myself that the Mrs Reid encounter is not only illogical, if the premise is that Oswald was trying to escape ASAP, but that its not even logistically possible for Oswald to have exited via front door before 3 min post shots, since he is only in his T shirt when he exited office at 2 min 25 sec post shots.


Then I considered a possible EARLY meeting with Mrs Reid occuring at approx 50 sec post shots, and the Oswald upon exiting only in his T shirt would have returned to lunchroom to get his jacket and be seen by Baker. But this is DISPROVED by the Couch Film and Wiegman film barring that someone can prove the Couch film is a composite film and was actually started at 6 sec posts shots. GOOD LUCK with that  :)


So yes, Mrs Reid "story" imo, is both illogical, and UNVERIFIABLE as well.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 25, 2019, 08:33:06 PM
     If Oswald used the front staircase as you say, and then enters the Break Room 10 seconds ahead of Officer Baker, how would Baker see him through that small window on the door leading to the Vestibule? (As testified to by Baker). Do you generally believe the Baker story of seeing Oswald through that Vestibule door window is BS?


Its a question of timing. Since both Baker/Truly and Oswald would be in proximity in a 10 sec range of time, its not inconceivable that opening the door, closing the door would cause some kind of change in light intensity streaming thru the 2 windows.

But the Geneva Hine in the hallway as early as 40 sec post shots, kind of conflicts badly with an up the front staircase from front lobby trek by Oswald, imo.
Right now, the Prayer person being Sarah Staunton, one has to wonder why Staunton being a 400 lb obstacle in the way of the oncoming Baker, would not remember having to move out of the way of, nor see Baker, or vis versa, Baker having not mentioned either.
Since there are these people in proximity , then the storage room option for Oswald
 becomes ever more probable than the other 2 options, Domino room or going up to 2nd floor lunchroom, because of being in LOS of others like perhaps Joe Molina, for not more than about 5 secs, before disappearing out of LOS again.

Oswald puts on his jacket while still in the storage room, and exits, and possibly even surprised Baker who is following Truly, across the lobby, about to reach the 2nd set of glass doors.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 25, 2019, 08:48:12 PM

Its a question of timing. Since both Baker/Truly and Oswald would be in proximity in a 10 sec range of time, its not inconceivable that opening the door, closing the door would cause some kind of change in light intensity streaming thru the 2 windows.

But the Geneva Hine in the hallway as early as 40 sec post shots, kind of conflicts badly with an up the front staircase from front lobby trek by Oswald, imo.


Right now, the Prayer person being Sarah Staunton, one has to wonder why Staunton being a 400 lb obstacle in the way of the oncoming Baker, would not remember having to move out of the way of, nor see Baker, or vis versa, Baker having not mentioned either.

Since there are these people in proximity , then the option of going to the storage room becomes ever more probable than the other 2 options, Domino room or going up to 2nd floor lunchroom, because of being in LOS of anyone, like perhaps Joe Molina, for not more than about 5 secs, before disappearing out of LOS again. Until then Oswald gets his jacket on from the storage room and then exits, maybe and even kind surprixed Baker coming oiut of that storage room.

           The issue with Baker claiming to have seen Oswald through the vestibule window would be a timing problem. If Baker is within 10 seconds of Oswald, do you believe that Oswald carried his Bottle of Soda Pop with him from the 1st Floor, up the stairway, and down the hall into the Lunch Room? Oswald carrying that Pop Bottle would also mean he had Not finished the drink in roughly 20 minutes from the time he originally purchased it. That Pop Bottle is an issue that Law Enforcement obviously recognized as evidenced by it being Crossed Out by Officer Baker.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 08:50:06 PM
       Let's back up the truck. Just because something has been Omitted or Changed, ("P. Parade") does Not mean it has been "corrected" as You claim.
       I am assuming that Oswald went DOWN to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room at Noon/lunchtime to get his soda pop. If this is the case how does he then, "RETURNED to the 1st floor to eat lunch" as we see in the Hosty Notes. If it is true that Oswald was Returning to the 1st Floor, it appears we are missing a piece of Oswald's lunchtime itinerary.

I am assuming that Oswald went DOWN to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room at Noon/lunchtime to get his soda pop.

All of the notes of the interrogators reflect that Lee said that he went UP to the second floor to buy a coke from the vending machine....
Why would you assume that lee was on some floor above the second floor and then went DOWN to the second floor when there isn't an iota of evidence to support such a theory?

If this is the case how does he then, "RETURNED to the 1st floor to eat lunch" as we see in the Hosty Notes.

I assume that you mean the BOOKHOUT  notes....Hosty Never said anything like Lee taking his coke and going out to watch the P parade...

Here's what Hosty wrote....

Fritz... Where were you when the president went by the book depository?

LHO... "I was eating my lunch in the first floor lunchroom."

Fritz... "were you ever on the second floor about the time the president was shot?"   ( I doubt that Fitz used the words " when the President was shot"

LHO... "Well yeah. I went UP there to get a bottle of Coca-Cola from the machine for my lunch."

Fritz... "But where were you when the President actually passed by your building?"

LHO..."On the first floor in the lunchroom" 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 25, 2019, 09:03:52 PM
I am assuming that Oswald went DOWN to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room at Noon/lunchtime to get his soda pop.

All of the notes of the interrogators reflect that Lee said that he went UP to the second floor to buy a coke from the vending machine....
Why would you assume that lee was on some floor above the second floor and then went DOWN to the second floor when there isn't an iota of evidence to support such a theory?

If this is the case how does he then, "RETURNED to the 1st floor to eat lunch" as we see in the Hosty Notes.

I assume that you mean the BOOKHOUT  notes....Hosty Never said anything like Lee taking his coke and going out to watch the P parade...

Here's what Hosty wrote....

Fritz... Where were you when the president went by the book depository?

LHO... "I was eating my lunch in the first floor lunchroom."

Fritz... "were you ever on the second floor about the time the president was shot?"   ( I doubt that Fitz used the words " when the President was shot"

LHO... "Well yeah. I went UP there to get a bottle of Coca-Cola from the machine for my lunch."

Fritz... "But where were you when the President actually passed by your building?"

LHO..."On the first floor in the lunchroom"

           YOU are on your own with claiming what we are looking at is Not Hosty's Notes. I understand Hosty took his rough notes from the 3:15 Oswald Interrogation and Organized them on paper prior to then writing his Report. (Hosty's WC Testimony verifies his having done this). But for You to claim we are Not looking at Hosty's Organized Notes as discovered inside the National Archives is your own concoction.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 09:48:27 PM

It does seem rather odd that Oswald would not have been stating something at the midnight conference or at any other point afterwards, about his presence standing on the front entrance when the shots were fired.

Captain Fritz being Captain Fritz, he may have been telling Mr Oswald, 'Calm down, son, we know you were out front for the motorcade. That's not why you're here. You're looking at a double charge of killing an officer and conspiracy to murder the President. Your rifle was used by the shooter, and we know you brought it into work this morning.'

We must bear in mind also that Mr Oswald was not aware that he was about to be murdered and so would never get a chance to tell his side of the story.

Thankfully, 55 years later, we now have his side of the story. And guess what? It makes a whole lot more sense than the official story!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/bEXuLJC.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 09:51:33 PM

     Once again, You are making an assumption. The 3:15 Interview of Oswald was Before the LBJ/J Edgar LN Party Line had been created and disseminated. That 3:15 Q/A is Virgin Territory.

Exactly  Thumb1:

They're still in denial, Mr Storing. Hell hath no fury like a CT-er without a lunchroom story!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 10:15:53 PM
           YOU are on your own with claiming what we are looking at is Not Hosty's Notes. I understand Hosty took his rough notes from the 3:15 Oswald Interrogation and Organized them on paper prior to then writing his Report. (Hosty's WC Testimony verifies his having done this). But for You to claim we are Not looking at Hosty's Organized Notes as discovered inside the National Archives is your own concoction.

OPEN your eyes, and see for yourself....
The green highlighted notes were written by James Bookhout   The gray notes were written By Hosty.....  Hosty says NOTHING about a Coke....

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

(http://jfkforum.com/images/HostyInterrogationNotes.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 10:22:20 PM
Isn't it a remarkable fluke that Ms Arnold would tell Anthony Summers & Earl Golz something in 1978 that would support a claim made by Mr Oswald that would not surface until 2019?

Ms Arnold told Mr Anthony Summers that her sighting of Mr Oswald in the 2nd fl lunchroom was "about 12:15. It may have been slightly later".  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 10:28:21 PM
OPEN your eyes, and see for yourself....
The green highlighted notes were written by James Bookhout   The gray notes were written By Hosty.....  Hosty says NOTHING about a Coke....

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

(http://jfkforum.com/images/HostyInterrogationNotes.jpg)

For the third time!:

This comes from the newly revealed Hosty draft report:

(https://i.imgur.com/VJ42u4L.jpg)

This comes from the contemporaneous Hosty notes:

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


You are a reality-proof zone, Mr Cakebread.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 10:39:02 PM
For the third time!:

This comes from the newly revealed Hosty draft report:

(https://i.imgur.com/VJ42u4L.jpg)

This comes from the contemporaneous Hosty notes:

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


You are a reality-proof zone, Mr Cakebread.

The words preceding  "Soviet Union " are ......"Advised he resided in Soviet Union."....   

I'll interpret that for the slow witted who can't comprehend ....  Lee Oswald told them that he had resided in the Soviet Union.....   Ya Dig, Mr Ford?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 10:40:23 PM
Isn't it a remarkable fluke that Ms Arnold would tell Anthony Summers & Earl Golz something in 1978 that would support a claim made by Mr Oswald that would not surface until 2019?

If Mr Oswald stayed in the 2nd fl lunchroom from the time Ms Arnold saw him to the time of the shooting, isn't it another remarkable fluke that the two black co-workers he named as having come into the building through the back entrance just 5 or so minutes before the motorcade--------Messrs Jarman and Norman---------were the two black co-workers who had in fact come into the building through the back entrance just 5 or so minutes before the motorcade?

How about we stop making a presumed liar of Mr Oswald, folks, and start listening to what he's telling us?:

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

His is the only damn story that checks out!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 10:44:29 PM
The words preceding  "Soviet Union " are ......"Advised he resided in Soviet Union."....   

I'll interpret that for the slow witted who can't comprehend ....  Lee Oswald told them that he had resided in the Soviet Union.....   Ya Dig, Mr Ford?

Stop digging, Mr Cakebread, you're just embarrassing yourself in front of everyone. Take a nap  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 25, 2019, 10:47:54 PM
OPEN your eyes, and see for yourself....
The green highlighted notes were written by James Bookhout   The gray notes were written By Hosty.....  Hosty says NOTHING about a Coke....

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

(http://jfkforum.com/images/HostyInterrogationNotes.jpg)

     What is your source that Documents your claim, "the green highlighted Notes were Written by JAMES BOOKHOUT" ?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 10:51:51 PM
If Mr Oswald stayed in the 2nd fl lunchroom from the time Ms Arnold saw him to the time of the shooting, isn't it another remarkable fluke that the two black co-workers he named as having come into the building through the back entrance just 5 or so minutes before the motorcade--------Messrs Jarman and Norman---------were the two black co-workers who had in fact come into the building through the back entrance just 5 or so minutes before the motorcade?

How about we stop making a presumed liar of Mr Oswald, folks, and start listening to what he's telling us?:

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

His is the only damn story that checks out!

His is the only damn story that checks out!

On that point I agree completely..... Lee was telling the truth.... But those who recorded what he said had an agenda and often twisted his words to fit their agenda....But sometimes they simply didn't understand what he was saying...

And he damned sure never said he went outside with his coke to watch the P. Parade.   He said that he went back to the 1st floor lunchroom after Baker and Truly departed.   And the shortest route to the Domino Room was NOT through the second floor offices, and past Mrs Reid's desk....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 25, 2019, 11:06:07 PM
His is the only damn story that checks out!

On that point I agree completely..... Lee was telling the truth.... But those who recorded what he said had an agenda and often twisted his words to fit their agenda....But sometimes they simply didn't understand what he was saying...


So----Lee was telling the truth, but in order to get at Lee's truth I, Mr W Cakebread, will zealously cherrypick, mangle and misread the evidence to fit my own long-cherished narrative ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 11:17:46 PM
     What is your source that Documents your claim, "the green highlighted Notes were Written by JAMES BOOKHOUT" ?

My source???   It's right there in front of you, Royell.....LOOK.  The penmanship is similar, but not the same....and Hosty's notes, (gray) contradict Bookhout's notes (green)   If Hosty had written all of it he wouldn't have contradicted himself.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2019, 11:36:40 PM
So----Lee was telling the truth, but in order to get at Lee's truth I, Mr W Cakebread, will zealously cherrypick, mangle and misread the evidence to fit my own long-cherished narrative ::)

Mr Ford.....Are you related to that other Mr Ford that was Hoovers spy on the Warren Commission..   The Mr Gerald Ford who kept Hoover informed about what all of the members were doing .....

You seem to be hell bent on creating confusion.....But maybe you're simple stupid....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 26, 2019, 12:06:40 AM
Mr Ford.....Are you related to that other Mr Ford that was Hoovers spy on the Warren Commission..   The Mr Gerald Ford who kept Hoover informed about what all of the members were doing .....

You seem to be hell bent on creating confusion.....But maybe you're simple stupid....

 :D

It's not my fault that Mr Oswald puts himself out front for the motorcade, Mr Cakebread! Though I quite understand why you and the other resident kook are gnashing your teeth and foaming at the mouth in anguish at this development. But please, know that you are not alone at this difficult moment---------the Lone Nutters are going through the very same thing! :D

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

In case you're having trouble with the handwriting, the last bit reads: "Then went outside to watch P. Parade."  Thumb1:

Also, 'O' stands for 'Oswald'.  Thumb1: Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 26, 2019, 12:17:37 AM
OPEN your eyes, and see for yourself....
The green highlighted notes were written by James Bookhout   The gray notes were written By Hosty.....  Hosty says NOTHING about a Coke....

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

(http://jfkforum.com/images/HostyInterrogationNotes.jpg)

The writing on both sets of notes was of the hand of the same person,
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 26, 2019, 12:24:03 AM
:D

It's not my fault that Mr Oswald puts himself out front for the motorcade, Mr Cakebread! Though I quite understand why you and the other resident kook are gnashing your teeth and foaming at the mouth in anguish at this development. But please, know that you are not alone at this difficult moment---------the Lone Nutters are going through the very same thing! :D

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

In case you're having trouble with the handwriting, the last bit reads: "Then went outside to watch P. Parade."  Thumb1:

Ford...You've burned out your clutch ...you're racing your engine and going nowhere....

Also, 'O' stands for 'Oswald'.  Thumb1: Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 26, 2019, 12:40:13 AM
My source???   It's right there in front of you, Royell.....LOOK.  The penmanship is similar, but not the same....and Hosty's notes, (gray) contradict Bookhout's notes (green)   If Hosty had written all of it he wouldn't have contradicted himself.

     So YOU being a Handwriting Expert have determined these Notes are Bookhout's? This is where You consistently get jammed up on this Forum. You continue Stating Your OPINION as being Fact. Total  BS:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 26, 2019, 12:42:19 AM
There are a lot of difference's between Bookhout's and Hosty's penmanship .......  even though their handwriting is similar .....

      Do you also tell fortunes?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 26, 2019, 01:18:49 AM
     So YOU being a Handwriting Expert have determined these Notes are Bookhout's? This is where You consistently get jammed up on this Forum. You continue Stating Your OPINION as being Fact. Total  BS:

Oh,fer cryin out loud, Royell.... This isn't rocket science....Open your eyes and LOOK.....It's so easy to see that the Hosty (gray) notes are written by a different person than the person who wrote the Bookhout (green) notes... and it doesn't take a certified handwriting analyst to see it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 26, 2019, 01:42:49 AM
Oh,fer cryin out loud, Royell.... This isn't rocket science....Open your eyes and LOOK.....It's so easy to see that the Hosty (gray) notes are written by a different person than the person who wrote the Bookhout (green) notes... and it doesn't take a certified handwriting analyst to see it.

        Be clear when stating what is Your OPINION.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 26, 2019, 02:26:11 AM
Mr Ford....I thought You were an intellectually  honest person....  I do like to admit I'm wrong, ( Nobody does) but It definitely looks like I was wrong in believing that you are honest.

Mr Cakebread.....You think of yourself as a fearless Warren Critic, yet here you are doing everything you humanly can to shout down evidence that points to the exoneration of Mr Oswald of the heinous crime of shooting John F. Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Book Depository. You ought to go away for a little while and reflect on the ethics of what you are doing.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 26, 2019, 03:02:43 AM
Why did whomever wrote the handwritten note leave out that detail of "P.Parade" in their typed up version?

Why would Oswald make such statment absent attorney present, knowing its a false statement that will be proved false? What does that gain Oswald?

If the reason to write down P.Parade  to later use as proof that Oswald was a liar, then why exclude the P.Parade from the final draft?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Howsley on February 26, 2019, 03:14:02 AM
Mr Oswald's side of the story is finally getting a hearing ...

His story has been around for 55 years. He stated he was out front/in the lunchroom/coming downstairs all simultaneously.

He was a big fat liar. Let me know if you ever get a clear image of him on the steps and I'll look again. Until then this is nothing but wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 26, 2019, 03:16:25 AM
Why did whomever wrote the handwritten note leave out that detail of "P.Parade" in their typed up version?

Because Mr Oswald's claimed alibi had to be buried.

Quote
Why would Oswald make such statment absent attorney present, knowing its a false statement that will be proved false? What does that gain Oswald?

It wasn't a false statement.

Quote
If the reason to write down P.Parade  to later use as proof that Oswald was a liar, then why exclude the P.Parade from the final draft?

That was not the reason it was written down. The reason it was written down was that Mr Oswald himself had said it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 26, 2019, 03:28:21 AM
His story has been around for 55 years. He stated he was out front/in the lunchroom/coming downstairs all simultaneously.

He was a big fat liar. Let me know if you ever get a clear image of him on the steps and I'll look again. Until then this is nothing but wishful thinking.

The only wishful thinking here is yours, Mr Howsley. You cannot explain away the suppression of Mr Oswald's claim to have gone outside to watch the motorcade. Your beloved fairytale is dead. My condolences.

Let me know when Mr Oswald shows up in the window:

(https://i.imgur.com/6UziVwq.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 26, 2019, 03:46:04 AM
Because Mr Oswald's claimed alibi had to be buried.

It wasn't a false statement.

That was not the reason it was written down. The reason it was written down was that Mr Oswald himself had said it.

So either Oswald is a complete looney tune and or an idiot, to make false statements that  surely he knew would be proven false, or, he told the truth.

If Oswald had said nothing, and Hosty made up the statement, it could be only for one reason, to later paint Oswald as a liar. But if this were the motive, then surely Hosty would include the P.Parade in later typed draft. Therefore, Oswald  made the statement and Hosty wrote it down initially, but then for some reason, Hosty decided not to record it later. Why?

If its a false statement made by a looney tune Oswald, that Hosty intially wrote down in handwritten note, but later omitted the statment, it can really be only for one reason: There was too much risk that someone of the many people NOT called to testify, might CONFIRM Oswalds statement.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 26, 2019, 04:41:34 AM
Why did whomever wrote the handwritten note leave out that detail of "P.Parade" in their typed up version?

Why would Oswald make such statment absent attorney present, knowing its a false statement that will be proved false? What does that gain Oswald?

If the reason to write down P.Parade  to later use as proof that Oswald was a liar, then why exclude the P.Parade from the final draft?

    Just my opinion but I do believe Oswald did say he went Outside to "watch the P. Parade" during his 3:15 Interrogation. Oswald saying this does Not make it a fact. People/Suspects lie all the time. Oswald said he was outside the TSBD at his 3:15 Q/A  BEFORE LBJ and J. Edgar came up with their LN shooter from the 6th Floor scenario. Therefore, Oswald saying he went outside to "watch the P. Parade" was notated at the time it was said. Once LBJ and J. Edgar made their LN Scenario known, Oswald's comments of being outside the TSBD and "watching the P. Parade" were removed from All Notes taken at that 3:15 interrogation.  Hosty's WC testimony was that he organized/re-wrote his 3:15 Notes to make it easier to write the Official Report of the 3:15 Interrogation. This was the same process that Humes used with his Autopsy Notes. It is possible that Hosty like Humes wrote several drafts of his Notes before composing the Official Report. In his WC Testimony Hosty testified as to having Destroyed his Original Notes upon completing the Official Report. This removed the Oswald comments from Hosty's Original Notes.  What was discovered in the National Archives could be a very early draft by Hosty to organize his original notes. This would explain why those notes are simply scrawled on the Back Side of a DPD Affidavit = mere scratch paper. Due to this being written on the Back Side of a DPD Affidavit, it was probably overlooked/lost in the shuffle and then accidentally buried inside the National Archives. This also explains why it is the Only record of Oswald saying he went Outside the TSBD to "watch the P. Parade".       
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Howsley on February 26, 2019, 06:51:01 AM
The only wishful thinking here is yours, Mr Howsley. You cannot explain away the suppression of Mr Oswald's claim to have gone outside to watch the motorcade. Your beloved fairytale is dead. My condolences.

Let me know when Mr Oswald shows up in the window:

(https://i.imgur.com/6UziVwq.jpg)

 Thumb1:

There doesn't need to be a photo of Oswald at the window as the stack of evidence of his guilt towers over his lies of innocence. You though sure as hell need a photo of him on the steps. At the moment all there is to see is a blob.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 26, 2019, 08:03:56 AM
    Just my opinion but I do believe Oswald did say he went Outside to "watch the P. Parade" during his 3:15 Interrogation. Oswald saying this does Not make it a fact. People/Suspects lie all the time. Oswald said he was outside the TSBD at his 3:15 Q/A  BEFORE LBJ and J. Edgar came up with their LN shooter from the 6th Floor scenario.

All true!  Thumb1:

But the Hosty notes reveal more than just a claim by Mr Oswald to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade". They also show that a confirmation of the post-shooting 2nd fl lunchroom incident with Officer Baker was put in Mr Oswald's mouth after his death. This is as much of a smoking gun as the suppression of Mr Oswald's "P. Parade" claim, for it shows how central the lunchroom fiction became to depriving Mr Oswald of his alibi.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 26, 2019, 08:07:08 AM
There doesn't need to be a photo of Oswald at the window as the stack of evidence of his guilt towers over his lies of innocence. You though sure as hell need a photo of him on the steps. At the moment all there is to see is a blob.

Do let us know when you come up with an argument that doesn't rest on blind faith in the virtue and honesty of Captain Fritz and Co.!   Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Howsley on February 26, 2019, 08:35:12 AM
Do let us know when you come up with an argument that doesn't rest on blind faith in the virtue and honesty of Captain Fritz and Co.!   Thumb1:

By Captain Fritz and Company I assume you are including Hosty in that group.

Too funny Alan.  Thumb1:  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 26, 2019, 12:18:58 PM
By Captain Fritz and Company I assume you are including Hosty in that group.

Too funny Alan.  Thumb1:  Thumb1:

Hosty lie? Surely not!

Hosty 11/22: Oswald said he went outside to watch the Presidential parade.
Hosty before WC: Oswald said he was in the domino room during the Presidential parade.


:D

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 26, 2019, 03:31:42 PM
All true!  Thumb1:

But the Hosty notes reveal more than just a claim by Mr Oswald to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade". They also show that a confirmation of the post-shooting 2nd fl lunchroom incident with Officer Baker was put in Mr Oswald's mouth after his death. This is as much of a smoking gun as the suppression of Mr Oswald's "P. Parade" claim, for it shows how central the lunchroom fiction became to depriving Mr Oswald of his alibi.

      The recently discovered Hosty Notes are a Hard Cold FACT that can be Held/Touched. They are Reality. Your conclusions are Conjecture.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 26, 2019, 03:37:04 PM
There doesn't need to be a photo of Oswald at the window as the stack of evidence of his guilt towers over his lies of innocence. You though sure as hell need a photo of him on the steps. At the moment all there is to see is a blob.

There doesn't need to be a photo of Oswald at the window as the stack of evidence of his guilt towers over his lies of innocence.

So even though a photo shows that there was nobody firing a rifle from the sixth floor window at the time of the murder.... You insist that your boogie man the arch villain Lee Harrrrrrvey Osssssswald Boooooo Hisssss was there and committed the murder with a rusty old rifle that had the scope mounted sidewise....

Is that what you believe Howsley?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 26, 2019, 04:12:32 PM
      The recently discovered Hosty Notes are a Hard Cold FACT that can be Held/Touched. They are Reality. Your conclusions are Conjecture.

It is not conjecture that two of Mr Oswald's most important claims in that first interrogation
-----------pre-motorcade visit to 2nd fl lunchroom to buy a coke
-----------going outside to watch motorcade
were suppressed. This Hosty draft report makes it a cold hard fact.

Now! That double claim from Mr Oswald rules out his having also claimed to have made a visit to the 2nd fl lunchroom immediately after the shooting to buy a second coke.

Now! If the post-motorcade incident which Mr Oswald did not confirm had actually happened, why would Mr Oswald's disavowal of that incident have needed to be suppressed? This is the question which those trying to dismiss the significance of the Hosty notes (you are not one of them) cannot offer any rational answer to.

I would also remind you that the bombshell contents of this Hosty draft interrogation report
-----------pre-motorcade visit to 2nd fl lunchroom to buy a coke
-----------going outside to watch motorcade
were predicted with full accuracy by those who have been pressing the case that the 2nd fl lunchroom incident never happened.

This predictive success was no accident!  Do not confuse 'conjecture' with 'logical inference'! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 26, 2019, 04:19:33 PM
      The recently discovered Hosty Notes are a Hard Cold FACT that can be Held/Touched. They are Reality. Your conclusions are Conjecture.

Do you mean the recently discovered BOOKHOUT notes?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 26, 2019, 04:49:40 PM
It is not conjecture that two of Mr Oswald's most important claims in that first interrogation
-----------pre-motorcade visit to 2nd fl lunchroom to buy a coke
-----------going outside to watch motorcade
were suppressed. This Hosty draft report makes it a cold hard fact.

Now! That double claim from Mr Oswald rules out his having also claimed to have made a visit to the 2nd fl lunchroom immediately after the shooting to buy a second coke.

Now! If the post-motorcade incident which Mr Oswald did not confirm had actually happened, why would Mr Oswald's disavowal of that incident have needed to be suppressed? This is the question which those trying to dismiss the significance of the Hosty notes (you are not one of them) cannot offer any rational answer to.

I would also remind you that the bombshell contents of this Hosty draft interrogation report
-----------pre-motorcade visit to 2nd fl lunchroom to buy a coke
-----------going outside to watch motorcade
were predicted with full accuracy by those who have been pressing the case that the 2nd fl lunchroom incident never happened.

This predictive success was no accident!  Do not confuse 'conjecture' with 'logical inference'! Thumb1:

     I find the recently discovered Hosty Notes to be ground breaking. We frequently hear that after 55+ years there is No New Evidence out there to shed New Light on this unsolved murder. But here we have written in long hand the notes of someone that was front-n-center at Oswald's very 1st interrogation. With there being scant evidence of what was asked and answered at Any of the Oswald interrogations, these Hosty Notes of Oswald's very 1st Q/A can Not be over stated.
     I too have my doubts as to the alleged Baker/Oswald Lunch Room encounter, but my doubts are founded on the alleged itinerary of Oswald. His coming down that rickety stairwell from the 6th Floor, (not being heard by Baker), exiting the stairwell, cutting across the floor in order to enter the vestibule which permits Oswald to enter the Lunch Room do not fit the actions of an assassin on-the-run. That vestibule also has a door inside it which grants access to a hallway. That hallway leads to the short stairway which empties down onto the 1st floor within feet of the TSBD front door. Taking that hallway off the vestibule and staying on the move in the direction of a hasty exit makes far more sense than cornering one's self Inside a lunch room. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 26, 2019, 06:41:55 PM
There doesn't need to be a photo of Oswald at the window as the stack of evidence of his guilt towers over his lies of innocence. You though sure as hell need a photo of him on the steps. At the moment all there is to see is a blob.

Leaving aside all the speculative assumptions that have to be made to come close to some kind of plausibe narrative, please tell us what exactly is this "stack of evidence of his guilt".

It would be nice if at least one LN would support such a bold claim rather than just claiming it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on February 26, 2019, 07:41:32 PM
Indeed.  ???

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/comp1.jpg)

"Indeed", and absolutely, there is nothing reliable to conclude PrayerPersonImage as representing any male, much less AccusedLoneGunmanAssassin LeeHarveyOswald.

I do conclude that the provided film frame/still indicates PrayerWomanImage to be in the corner, but with a head turn towards her right as if looking towards GloriaCalveryImage on the stairs, who as evidence indicates, as she is approaching/entering the stairs/landing, is 'announcing' to other stairs/landing occupants what she had just witnesses seconds earlier.


However, when viewing the actual DarnellFilm, PrayerWomanImage appears to be turning her head either towards, or away from BuellWesleyFrazier as if confirming what MsCalvery had just 'announced'.

And, the SarahDeanStantonImage face image insertion appears close to the as shown PrayerWomanImage head turn angle.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 26, 2019, 09:59:28 PM
Apparently Dirty Harvey watched the parade, alright.
Well, at least until he was satisfied with what he saw.
Or so I hear...

As someone said elsewhere he watched the parade through iron sights.

Why is it that Lone Nutters can only contribute to a discussion by saying "Oswald did it" over and over again?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 26, 2019, 10:51:10 PM
Leaving aside all the speculative assumptions that have to be made to come close to some kind of plausibe narrative, please tell us what exactly is this "stack of evidence of his guilt".

It would be nice if at least one LN would support such a bold claim rather than just claiming it.

Don't hold your breath, Mr Weidmann! They have had 55 years to put Mr Oswald at that window at that time with that rifle, and they still come up short every time.

Speaking of plausible narratives: the official implausible narrative now, for the first time in those 55 years, finds itself confronted with a simple, concrete and plausible counter-narrative:

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

Courtesy of Mr Oswald himself Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 26, 2019, 10:55:15 PM
The Coca cola was not brought up in the first interrogation, and that's the ONLY interrogation that Hosty attended.

More unadulterated nonsense from Mr Cakebread  ::)

Agent Hosty co-signed the first report on Mr Oswald's first interrogation which contains the words:

Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and 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 is 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 the building.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 26, 2019, 11:25:01 PM
       The Hosty Notes which mention Oswald claiming to go outside and "Watched the P. Parade" are written on the Back Side of a DPD Affidavit Form. According to SA Bookhout's WC testimony, he was NOT on duty on 11/22/63. He was "On leave". Bookhout was physically there in Dallas and watched the JFK Motorcade pass by that day. When he was told by a passerby that shots had been fired, he called in and was at some point was directed to be on hand at the Oswald 3:15 Interrogation. Is it possible with SA Bookhout being "On Leave" that he was Not carrying his FBI Note Pad with him? Bookhout Not having his FBI Note Pad with him probably forced him to write down his Oswald Interrogation Notes on whatever paper was on hand = the Back Side of a DPD Affidavit Form. This would make these Notes to be the Original Bookhout Notes taken During the Oswald 3:15 Interrogation.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 26, 2019, 11:56:47 PM
       The Hosty Notes which mention Oswald claiming to go outside and "Watched the P. Parade" are written on the Back Side of a DPD Affidavit Form. According to SA Bookhout's WC testimony, he was NOT on duty on 11/22/63. He was "On leave". Bookhout was physically there in Dallas and watched the JFK Motorcade pass by that day. When he was told by a passerby that shots had been fired, he called in and was at some point was directed to be on hand at the Oswald 3:15 Interrogation. Is it possible with SA Bookhout being "On Leave" that he was Not carrying his FBI Note Pad with him? Bookhout Not having his FBI Note Pad with him probably forced him to write down his Oswald Interrogation Notes on whatever paper was on hand = the Back Side of a DPD Affidavit Form. This would make these Notes to be the Original Bookhout Notes taken During the Oswald 3:15 Interrogation.

Yes, I believe your right....I recall Bookhout saying that he jotted his notes on the back of a pad of DPD affidavit forms that he found in the Homicide office.

But I believe that the Bookhout notes are from the second interrogation ...... Hosty never recorded anything about the Coca- Cola, because that never came up in the first session.   That first session ended at 4:05 and Hosty was ordered to stay out of the interrogation because he had caused Lee to become angry by mentioning Mexico City...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 27, 2019, 12:01:33 AM
Yes, I believe your right....I recall Bookhout saying that he jotted his notes on the back of a pad of DPD affidavit forms that he found in the Homicide office.

But I believe that the Bookhout notes are from the second interrogation ...... Hosty never recorded anything about the Coca- Cola, because that never came up in the first session.   That first session ended at 4:05 and Hosty was ordered to stay out of the interrogation because he had caused Lee to become angry by mentioning Mexico City...

    What Hosty may or may not have recorded is immaterial. What we are looking at are Original Notes recorded when heard. Most likely recorded by Bookhout.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 27, 2019, 12:25:09 AM
    What Hosty may or may not have recorded is immaterial. What we are looking at are Original Notes recorded when heard. Most likely recorded by Bookhout.

While I agree that the notes are the notes written by Bookhout ...., That does not mean that they are !00% accurate....  Lee's movements inside the TSBD didn't come up during the first interrogation.... And Bookhout simply misunderstood what Lee said.   Lee had gone to the second floor to get a coke to drink WITH HIS LUNCH.... So he wouldn't have gone out front with the coke....He returned to the Domino room with his coke just as Bookhout recorded in his notes....And I doubt that he walked through the office area and passed by Mrs Reid .....  The shortest route to the Domino room from the second floor lunchroom was down the stairs and across the ist floor to the domino room....  However there was a shorter route if the back door of the lunchroom wasn't locked.....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 27, 2019, 01:03:56 AM
    YOU are Not a handwriting expert. SA Bookhout's WC Testimony supplies the Facts that explain why the Oswald 3:15 Interrogation was recorded on the Blank Side of a DPD Affidavit. Facts are Facts. Get over it

Doyly can't capitulate....He lacks the character to admit the truth, and LEARN.....His ego keeps him from advancing his knowledge and keeps him ignorant...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 27, 2019, 01:06:17 AM
Doyly can't capitulate....He lacks the character to admit the truth, and LEARN.....His ego keeps him from advancing his knowledge and keeps him ignorant...

    Some of these guys are ALL about saving face instead of solving this assassination one issue at a time.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 27, 2019, 01:08:28 AM
OPEN your eyes, and see for yourself....
The green highlighted notes were written by James Bookhout   The gray notes were written By Hosty.....  Hosty says NOTHING about a Coke....


For now, I'm sticking with my assertion that the handwriting on both sets of notes appears to be the same. I will say though, in just focusing on the first set, that the handwriting looks to be that of Bookhout.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 27, 2019, 01:12:22 AM
For now, I'm sticking with my assertion that the handwriting on both sets of notes appears to be the same. I will say though, in just focusing on the first set, that the handwriting looks to be that of Bookhout.

     I'm Not qualified to judge handwriting. I do know the SA Bookhout testimony does give us a logical explanation as to why the Oswald 3:15 PM Interrogation Notes were recorded on the Back Side of a DPD Affidavit Form.  It fits
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 27, 2019, 01:29:33 AM
    Some of these guys are ALL about saving face instead of solving this assassination one issue at a time.
Yes, That's exactly right.... And the pity is:...They judge everybody else by their own blinding ways.    Some have accused me of having a blinding ego ....One that keeps me from seeing that there were several Oswald's roaming the country and causing people who didn't even know Lee Oswald to believe he was driving a old Ford with Marina and a baby as passengers....  Where Lee Oswald would have got such a car never crosses their mind ...nor do they wonder why Marina don't remember Lee driving around in that old Ford .... They simply accept that some lunatic was impersonating Lee Oswald simply to cause confusion ....  Why the lunatic was creating the confusion is never given a second thought....

I'm no different than anybody else....in the fact that I don't like to admit an error, but I'm not a fool....  If I'm wrong about something then I have to accept that and learn from it....

Having said that....I seriously doubt that anybody could cause me to change my mind about the murder of President Kennedy....  I don't know who fired the guns that killed him....But I do know the demented fiends who were behind the trigger men were LBJ and J.Edgar Hoover. 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 27, 2019, 03:15:10 AM
     I'm Not qualified to judge handwriting.

Neither am I. I'm not so sure that it's Bookhout's handwriting. The capital F in Fidel is rather unique and it matches how Hosty wrote it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 27, 2019, 04:51:08 AM
Neither am I. I'm not so sure that it's Bookhout's handwriting. The capital F in Fidel is rather unique and it matches how Hosty wrote it.

    Agree as to both of us Not being handwritting experts. That said, SA Bookhout being "on leave" on 11/22/63 and unexpectedly/hurriedly being called into the 3:15 Oswald Interrogation fits the Notes being scrawled on the back side/blank side of a simple DPD Affidavit Form. Bookhout was flying by the seat of his pants and did Not have his FBI Note Pad with him for the 3:15 Oswald Interrogation. It also fits that these Notes were inadvertently Not Destroyed due to being laid down with the DPD Affidavit Form up/facing any possible viewer(s).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 27, 2019, 06:13:31 PM
     Again, put away the ax and present whatever Evidence you might have. Your Personal vendettas and rants do nothing to further the discussion or help solve this case

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/pix.iemoji.com/images/emoji/apple/ios-12/256/thumbs-up.png)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 27, 2019, 07:31:15 PM
Neither am I. I'm not so sure that it's Bookhout's handwriting. The capital F in Fidel is rather unique and it matches how Hosty wrote it.

     (1) Do you know why Hosty would jot those Notes down on the back of a DPD Affidavit Form? (2) Do you know why when these Notes were discovered inside the National Archives that SA Hosty was given credit as being their author?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 27, 2019, 07:59:52 PM
     (1) Do you know why Hosty would jot those Notes down on the back of a DPD Affidavit Form? (2) Do you know why when these Notes were discovered inside the National Archives that SA Hosty was given credit as being their author?

Royell, I'm sure there was more than the short note that has been posted....  Do you know where to find the complete note?

Alan Ford post the short bit that we've been discussing, but I'd like to see the rest of it....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 27, 2019, 08:17:22 PM
Mr. JENNER - Were you interviewed by the FBI agents Hosty and Abernathy on the 23d of November 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

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

(https://i.imgur.com/O56sVb2.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 27, 2019, 08:20:42 PM
Royell, I'm sure there was more than the short note that has been posted....  Do you know where to find the complete note?

Alan Ford post the short bit that we've been discussing, but I'd like to see the rest of it....

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Note.png)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 27, 2019, 08:54:48 PM
Mr. JENNER - Were you interviewed by the FBI agents Hosty and Abernathy on the 23d of November 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

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

(https://i.imgur.com/O56sVb2.jpg)

 Thumb1:

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

(https://i.imgur.com/O56sVb2.jpg)

Wow!!...Thank You Alan.....

Let's examine the notes for the morning of 11/23 /63....

2 Paines.... Ruth and Micheal were being questioned.

Mrs Micheal R Paine  ..... Thursday night ( rifle was) wrapped in blanket in garage......

It appears that Ruth Paine knew the rifle was wrapped in the blanket and told the police that it was there Thursday night.....

This fits with her actions when the police arrived at her house on Friday afternoon.....  When Marina took the detectives to the garage, Marina said that  Ruth Pain went directly to the blanket on the floor and stood on it.....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 27, 2019, 09:02:56 PM
Thank you, Agent Bookhout, for this most informative account of Mr Oswald's claimed movements at the critical time!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/5gYnwTT.jpg)

In the previous interrogation report, which you co-signed while Mr Oswald was still alive, you and your colleague Agent Hosty told us that Mr Oswald had said he was "on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed the building". But you made no reference to which part of the first floor he said he was at!

You now have a terrific opportunity to clarify the issue for us. But no! Instead you go one step further in information-omission and make no reference to the time of the shooting itself. Why oh why, Agent Bookhout? One would have thought that the accused assassin's claimed whereabouts at the time of the assassination would have continued to be a matter of some interest to those investigating the-----assassination!

It's almost as if you were hiding something...  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 27, 2019, 09:03:46 PM
     (1) Do you know why Hosty would jot those Notes down on the back of a DPD Affidavit Form? (2) Do you know why when these Notes were discovered inside the National Archives that SA Hosty was given credit as being their author?

The notes have been posted, Royell.....  At first glance it's obvious that Ruth Paine was spying on the Oswald's .

She kept notes on Lee's activities, and it appears that she knew about Lee ordering the rifle from Chicago using the name Hidell.......

I haven't examined the notes closely but that much is obvious....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 27, 2019, 09:38:03 PM
Thank you, Agent Bookhout, for this most informative account of Mr Oswald's claimed movements at the critical time!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/5gYnwTT.jpg)

In the previous interrogation report, which you co-signed while Mr Oswald was still alive, you and your colleague Agent Hosty told us that Mr Oswald had said he was "on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed the building". But you made no reference to which part of the first floor he said he was at!

You now have a terrific opportunity to clarify the issue for us. But no! Instead you go one step further in information-omission and make no reference to the time of the shooting itself. Why oh why, Agent Bookhout? One would have thought that the accused assassin's claimed whereabouts at the time of the assassination would have continued to be a matter of some interest to those investigating the-----assassination!

It's almost as if you were hiding something...  :D

Question! What has happened between the first interrogation report's "when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed the building" and the second interrogation report's "at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building"?

Answer! Why, the lunchroom incident between Mr Oswald and Officer Baker has been invented!

Question! But what was the point of inventing the lunchroom incident?

Answer! Why, to get Mr Oswald away from the front entrance during the P. Parade!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 27, 2019, 09:40:57 PM
The notes are not all written by Hosty....

 ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 28, 2019, 01:42:20 AM
Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.


What a glorious sentence in Captain Fritz's first answer!

I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that etc

Good lord, Captain Fritz, it almost sounds like you're a bit... uh... uncomfortable with this question!

But your answers are actually-------------in their own inimitably Fritzian way--------------pretty truthful.

--------------Someone certainly did tell you that Mr Oswald had been 'stopped' by one of your men on the stairway, only the word 'steps' was used, wasn't it? The front steps! And the man who told you was indeed Mr Truly! And you told your men about it... and your men happily told the press all about it!  Thumb1:
--------------Mr Oswald did know that "the officer stopped him all right", only it wasn't in the lunchroom, was it? Thanks for not perjuring yourself by localising this!  Thumb1:
--------------Mr Oswald did tell you he'd been eating a cheese sandwich and drinking a Coca Cola--------on the front steps!  You've just kindly explained what we're seeing in the Wiegman film! Thumb1:
--------------'He said he had a Coca Cola'? Good man, Mr Fritz! You have managed to say-without-saying-outright that Mr Oswald was not 'up there' (on the front steps) to get a Coca Cola! He'd already bought it upstairs in the lunchroom and had now come outside to watch P. Parade! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 28, 2019, 12:14:32 PM
Question! What has happened between the first interrogation report's "when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed the building" and the second interrogation report's "at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building"?

Answer! Why, the lunchroom incident between Mr Oswald and Officer Baker has been invented!

Question! But what was the point of inventing the lunchroom incident?

Answer! Why, to get Mr Oswald away from the front entrance during the P. Parade!

 Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/5gYnwTT.jpg)

Alan....You're missing the most obvious entry in the scribbled notes of Hosty and Fritz..... WHY is there no mention of the rifles in the TSBD in this report???
We know that Lee told them that he had seen (this ) "rifle and two other" rifles in Mr Truly's office on Wednesday November 20 . 1963. So why did Bookhout omit that bit of information??  In the Bookhout scribbled  notes that you have posted, Bookhout does not record the statement that Lee said that he'd seen rifles in Mr Truly's office ....WHY?? ... I suspect that we are missing page one of Bookhout's hand scribbled notes , Because he DOES record the Coca -Cola incident which did not come up in the first interrogation, and Neither Fritz or Hosty recorded the Coca Cola incident in their notes......Hosty didn't record the Coca-Caola because he wasn't there for the second interrogation.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 28, 2019, 01:24:01 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/5gYnwTT.jpg)

Alan....You're missing the most obvious entry in the scribbled notes of Hosty and Fritz..... WHY is there no mention of the rifles in the TSBD in this report???

There is. The above is just an excerpt.

Above this excerpt we find:

Oswald stated that he did not own any rifle. He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository which Mr. truly and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at.

Do some homework, Mr Cakebread!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 28, 2019, 01:28:06 PM
Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.


What a glorious sentence in Captain Fritz's first answer!

I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that etc

Good lord, Captain Fritz, it almost sounds like you're a bit... uh... uncomfortable with this question!

But your answers are actually-------------in their own inimitably Fritzian way--------------pretty truthful.

--------------Someone certainly did tell you that Mr Oswald had been 'stopped' by one of your men on the stairway, only the word 'steps' was used, wasn't it? The front steps! And the man who told you was indeed Mr Truly! And you told your men about it... and your men happily told the press all about it!  Thumb1:
--------------Mr Oswald did know that "the officer stopped him all right", only it wasn't in the lunchroom, was it? Thanks for not perjuring yourself by localising this!  Thumb1:
--------------Mr Oswald did tell you he'd been eating a cheese sandwich and drinking a Coca Cola--------on the front steps!  You've just kindly explained what we're seeing in the Wiegman film! Thumb1:
--------------'He said he had a Coca Cola'? Good man, Mr Fritz! You have managed to say-without-saying-outright that Mr Oswald was not 'up there' (on the front steps) to get a Coca Cola! He'd already bought it upstairs in the lunchroom and had now come outside to watch P. Parade! Thumb1:

"What a glorious sentence in Captain Fritz's first answer!"

I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that etc

But is this the truth??  I believe that it was Lee Oswald who told Fritz that motorcycle cop had burst into the lunchroom while he was there drinking a coke.   

I don't believe that Fritz knew about that until Lee mentioned it.......
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 28, 2019, 02:39:16 PM
     Comparing the 3:15 Fritz Notes to the Bookhout/Hosty Notes would be a mistake. Both the Bookhout and Hosty WC Testimonies corroborate their joining the 3:15 interrogation 5-10 minutes AFTER it had begun. This means Fritz heard & Noted Oswald Q/A during that 5-10 minute time period that Bookhout & Hosty were Not Present.

Good point, Royell..... I had forgotten that Fritz had started interrogating Lee before Hosty arrived.....But I believe that Bookhout was already there when Hosty arrived at about 2:50.

 Fritz couldn't have asked Lee many questions before Hosty's arrival because he ( Fritz) had just returned to the DPD headquarters at about (when?) 2:45?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 28, 2019, 03:00:17 PM
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Note.png)

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Note.png)

I belive I sniff a bit of mendacity in the air.....  Bookhout in his scribbled notes  says that Lee told them right off that he lived at 1026 N. Beckley, and was registered as OH Lee...... But Mr Honest Will Fritz says he had to get that information from some unknown officer......   Hmmm

Mr. FRITZ. I sent some officers---you mean right at that time? I also sent officers over to the Beckley address, you know, as soon as we got there, I don't believe we had the Beckley address at this part of this question.
Mr. BALL. You didn't have it at that time, did you?
Mr. FRITZ. Not right at this time, but as soon as I got to that address.
Mr. BALL. Let's come to that a little later and we find out when you got there.
Mr. FRITZ. When I got there?
Mr. BALL. Yes. What did you do after you had sent the officers to Irving?
Mr. FRITZ. When I started to talk to this prisoner or maybe just before I started to talk to him, some officer told me outside of my office that he had a room on Beckley, I don't know who that officer was, I think we can find out, I have since I have talked to you this morning I have talked to Lieutenant Baker and he says I know maybe who that officer was, but I am not sure yet.
Mr. BALL. Some officer told you that he thought this man had a room on Beckley?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on February 28, 2019, 03:50:01 PM
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Note.png)

I belive I sniff a bit of mendacity in the air.....  Bookhout in his scribbled notes  says that Lee told them right off that he lived at 1026 N. Beckley, and was registered as OH Lee...... But Mr Honest Will Fritz says he had to get that information from some unknown officer......   Hmmm

Mr. FRITZ. I sent some officers---you mean right at that time? I also sent officers over to the Beckley address, you know, as soon as we got there, I don't believe we had the Beckley address at this part of this question.
Mr. BALL. You didn't have it at that time, did you?
Mr. FRITZ. Not right at this time, but as soon as I got to that address.
Mr. BALL. Let's come to that a little later and we find out when you got there.
Mr. FRITZ. When I got there?
Mr. BALL. Yes. What did you do after you had sent the officers to Irving?
Mr. FRITZ. When I started to talk to this prisoner or maybe just before I started to talk to him, some officer told me outside of my office that he had a room on Beckley, I don't know who that officer was, I think we can find out, I have since I have talked to you this morning I have talked to Lieutenant Baker and he says I know maybe who that officer was, but I am not sure yet.
Mr. BALL. Some officer told you that he thought this man had a room on Beckley?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

        WALTER - Might just be me, but I am bothered by that section of the Notes which contain Oswald going outside to "watch the P. Parade" being a Green BLOCK. The Written portion of the Note is Not merely Highlighted, that entire section of the Note is a Green Block. It looks like it was taken from elsewhere and placed inside the Note. Extremely old fashioned cut-n-paste?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 28, 2019, 05:18:01 PM
        WALTER - Might just be me, but I am bothered by that section of the Notes which contain Oswald going outside to "watch the P. Parade" being a Green BLOCK. The Written portion of the Note is Not merely Highlighted, that entire section of the Note is a Green Block. It looks like it was taken from elsewhere and placed inside the Note. Extremely old fashioned cut-n-paste?

The Written portion of the Note is Not merely Highlighted, that entire section of the Note is a Green Block. It looks like it was taken from elsewhere and placed inside the Note. Extremely old fashioned cut-n-paste?

Surely you're not suggesting that the green highlited area that Alan Ford highlighted was pasted to another note?   

I'm trying to establish a chronology .....  And I believe that you're right in saying that Fritz might have started interogating Lee before Hosty or Bookhout were present....But that doesn't fit with Hosty's claim that Gordon Shanklin had been ordered by Hoover to send Hosty over to the DPD to be present when Lee was being interrogated.  So Shanklin immediately called Curry and told him that Lee Oswald was not to be interrogated until an FBI agent was present.    Shanklin then sent Hosty over to the DOD and as he passed DPD Lt. Jack Reville Hosty blurted out that A communist named Oswald had murdered the President and The FBI knew that Oswald was capable of murdering the President and they knew that Oswald was in Dallas.   Hosty then went into the homicide office and the interrogation began at 3:15.......And one of the first questions that Hosty asked Fritz was:..." Ask him if he's ever been in Mecico City, Captain."

Of course Lee heard the request and blew up at Hosty.....and the reason he blew up was because he knew that there was a tape recording of him shouting at the Cuban ambassidor ...That Son -of- Bi--- Kennedy, Somone ought to shoot him, and maybe I'll do that" .    Lee knew that he had been ordered to pretend to hate JFK so he could obtain a visa to Cuba, and whether he shouted that hollow  threat on his own, or had been coached into shouting that....I don't know....   But Hosty damned sure knew about it..... 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on February 28, 2019, 10:15:24 PM
Now that the dust has settled, friends, let's take stock!

The revelation that Agent Hosty heard Mr Oswald tell Captain Fritz, in the first interrogation session, that he
---------------bought a coke in the 2nd fl lunchroom before the motorcade
---------------"went outside to watch P. Parade"
has met with mixed reaction.

On the one side!
Those who cling to kooky theories, e.g.
-----------the Warren Gullibles
-----------the Two!Oswalds!in!the!Building! loons
and those stuck-in-the-mud CTers who consider the 2nd fl lunchroom incident involving Officer Baker to be the single most sacrosanct piece in the puzzle.
These sorry individuals have all responded to the Hosty document with fury, disbelief and absurdly tortured arguments.
They resent and fear the accuracy with which the contents of the Hosty document were predicted by the Prayer Man advocates. Deep down they must know that they have gotten this whole thing horribly wrong.

On the other side!
All those who genuinely want to know the truth and who took one look at the Hosty document and quietly said, "Hmmm, now that's interesting."
These reasonable individuals have met the new revelation without hostility, denial or cognitive dissonance. They understand the significance of what has just happened.
Oswald Out Front can no longer be dismissed as a fringe theory. It's Mr Oswald's own counter-claim to the absurd Warren Report story. As such it deserves to be taken very seriously indeed.

Interesting days!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 28, 2019, 10:46:24 PM
Now that the dust has settled, friends, let's take stock!

The revelation that Agent Hosty heard Mr Oswald tell Captain Fritz, in the first interrogation session, that he
---------------bought a coke in the 2nd fl lunchroom before the motorcade
---------------"went outside to watch P. Parade"
has met with mixed reaction.

On the one side!
Those who cling to kooky theories, e.g.
-----------the Warren Gullibles
-----------the Two!Oswalds!in!the!Building! loons
and those stuck-in-the-mud CTers who consider the 2nd fl lunchroom incident involving Officer Baker to be the single most sacrosanct piece in the puzzle.
These sorry individuals have all responded to the Hosty document with fury, disbelief and absurdly tortured arguments.
They resent and fear the accuracy with which the contents of the Hosty document were predicted by the Prayer Man advocates. Deep down they must know that they have gotten this whole thing horribly wrong.

On the other side!
All those who genuinely want to know the truth and who took one look at the Hosty document and quietly said, "Hmmm, now that's interesting."
These reasonable individuals have met the new revelation without hostility, denial or cognitive dissonance. They understand the significance of what has just happened.
Oswald Out Front can no longer be dismissed as a fringe theory. It's Mr Oswald's own counter-claim to the absurd Warren Report story. As such it deserves to be taken very seriously indeed.

Interesting days!  Thumb1:

The revelation that Agent Hosty heard Mr Oswald tell Captain Fritz, in the first interrogation session, that he
---------------bought a coke in the 2nd fl lunchroom before the motorcade

Nope....The coke issue came up in the SECOND interrogation session....And Hosty wasn't even there.....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 01, 2019, 12:11:47 AM
     Are you claiming there were 2 Oswalds?

Yes, yes he is....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 01, 2019, 12:31:51 AM
     Are you claiming there were 2 Oswalds?

Psssst, Royell....  Yes that's what he's saying, but cut him a little slack....cuz he can't help it if he's a couple of french fries short of a complete happy meal......
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 01, 2019, 05:48:21 PM
Friends, it is extremely important that we understand what exactly the 'Fritz notes' are
----------------and what they are not!

They are ALL written by Captain Fritz, but only in the sense that he physically wrote these things down onto paper. Their content, however, was not originated by him!

How so?

With the exception of the all-important Page 1, 'Fritz's notes' display a point-for-point correspondence with the official typed interrogation reports of Agent Bookhout.
Another way of saying this:
They DERIVE entirely from Agent Bookhout's official interrogation reports.
They most certainly are NOT contemporaneous notes, nor even notes written from personal recall!
As such, they are pretty useless from an evidentiary point of view.  :(

But what----------I hear you ask----------about the all-important Page 1?!?

It is, I am sorry to say, a less straightforward affair altogether :'(

It is not a sequence of notes taken linearly from either the first official interrogation report CO-SIGNED by Agents Bookhout and Hosty or the second official interrogation report SIGNED ONLY by Agent Bookhout.

Now!

Kindly note the two items brightly boxed below:

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

They offer important clues as to the circumstances of the notes' inditing.

Clue #1! 'B.O.': Captain Fritz, when he wrote this, clearly did not have Agent Bookhout's name in front of him on a written document. He was hearing 'Book-out' and scribbling a phonetic shorthand! (At some point after this he would get it right: 'Bookhout', he adds in.)

Clue #2! 'wrighting': Captain Fritz, when he wrote this, clearly did not have a written text prepared by a well-educated FBI agent in front of him. He was hearing 'writing' and------being a hick!-------inditing the letters w-r-i-g-h-t-i-n-g.

My Solution!

Captain Fritz----------on this page as well as on the other pages-----------is taking notes as he listens to an interrogation report that has been recorded onto dictaphone.

Problem!

Although the notes Captain Fritz is taking on this page as he listens contain elements from both the first official interrogation report CO-SIGNED by Agents Bookhout and Hosty and the second official interrogation report SIGNED ONLY by Agent Bookhout, the scribbled notes' contents cannot fully be explained as a derivative of these two official reports!

Question!

What exactly is the dictated document Captain Fritz is listening to?

 ???
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 01, 2019, 06:36:32 PM
Friends, it is extremely important that we understand what exactly the 'Fritz notes' are
----------------and what they are not!

They are ALL written by Captain Fritz, but only in the sense that he physically wrote these things down onto paper. Their content, however, was not originated by him!

How so?

With the exception of the all-important Page 1, 'Fritz's notes' display a point-for-point correspondence with the official typed interrogation reports of Agent Bookhout.
Another way of saying this:
They DERIVE entirely from Agent Bookhout's official interrogation reports.
They most certainly are NOT contemporaneous notes, nor even notes written from personal recall!
As such, they are pretty useless from an evidentiary point of view.  :(

But what----------I hear you ask----------about the all-important Page 1?!?

It is, I am sorry to say, a less straightforward affair altogether :'(

It is not a sequence of notes taken linearly from either the first official interrogation report CO-SIGNED by Agents Bookhout and Hosty or the second official interrogation report SIGNED ONLY by Agent Bookhout.

Now!

Kindly note the two items brightly boxed below:

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

They offer important clues as to the circumstances of the notes' inditing.

Clue #1! 'B.O.': Captain Fritz, when he wrote this, clearly did not have Agent Bookhout's name in front of him on a written document. He was hearing 'Book-out' and scribbling a phonetic shorthand! (At some point after this he would get it right: 'Bookhout', he adds in.)

Clue #2! 'wrighting': Captain Fritz, when he wrote this, clearly did not have a written text prepared by a well-educated FBI agent in front of him. He was hearing 'writing' and------being a hick!-------inditing the letters w-r-i-g-h-t-i-n-g.

My Solution!

Captain Fritz----------on this page as well as on the other pages-----------is taking notes as he listens to an interrogation report that has been recorded onto dictaphone.

Problem!

Although the notes Captain Fritz is taking on this page as he listens contain elements from both the first official interrogation report CO-SIGNED by Agents Bookhout and Hosty and the second official interrogation report SIGNED ONLY by Agent Bookhout, the scribbled notes' contents cannot fully be explained as a derivative of these two official reports!

Question!

What exactly is the dictated document Captain Fritz is listening to?

 ???

What exactly is the dictated document Captain Fritz is listening to?

The "dictated Document" was called a Lee Oswald original.....

I believe that you're right in saying that Fritz enter Bookhout's name as "B.O. because that's what his ears heard Book Out.....but maybe Agent Bookhout hadn't showered....Who knows?   

I sincerely wish that you'd get your reasoning apparatus wired right....  You could be a real asset .....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 01, 2019, 07:46:31 PM

What exactly is the dictated document Captain Fritz is listening to?

 ???

Now!

(https://i.imgur.com/TJI6qrT.jpg)

3:15 p.m.: this is an important annotation, friends!

Captain Fritz's first interrogation of Mr Oswald did not begin at 3:15 p.m., but 3:15 p.m. is the time when Agents Bookhout & Hosty entered the room!

"When the Agents entered the interview room at 3:15 p. m., Captain Fritz had been previously interviewing Lee Harvey Oswald for an undetermined period of time." (Bookhout/Hosty Interrogation Report, dictated 11/23).

The 3:15 p.m. annotation alone proves that Captain Fritz-----in 'his' notes------is working from some record of the interrogation prepared by either Agent Bookhout, Agent Hosty, or both men!
Otherwise Captain Fritz would have timestamped the start of the interrogation to an earlier time!

 Thumb1:
 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 01, 2019, 08:13:25 PM

The 3:15 p.m. annotation alone proves that Captain Fritz-----in 'his' notes------is working from some record of the interrogation prepared by either Agent Bookhout, Agent Hosty, or both men!
Otherwise Captain Fritz would have timestamped the start of the interrogation to an earlier time!

 Thumb1:

Now!

It is obvious that the elements here underlined in green-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/rs1KEpc.jpg)

------------closely match the full body of Agent Bookhout's SOLO report (dictated 11/25):

Oswald stated that he did not own any rifle. He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository which Mr. truly and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at.

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 form 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. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe that there was going to be anymore work that day due to the confusion in the building.. He stated after arriving at his residence, then he went to a movie where he was subsequently apprehended by the Dallas Police Department.

Oswald stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., but that he is not required to punch a time clock. his usual place of work in the building is on the first floor; however, he frequently is required to go to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of the building in order to get books and this was true on November 22, 1963, and he had been on all of the floors in the performance of his duties on November 22, 1963.


 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 01, 2019, 09:40:31 PM
Now!

It is obvious that the elements here underlined in green-----------

(https://i.imgur.com/rs1KEpc.jpg)

------------closely match the full body of Agent Bookhout's SOLO report (dictated 11/25):

Oswald stated that he did not own any rifle. He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository which Mr. truly and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at.

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 form 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. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe that there was going to be anymore work that day due to the confusion in the building.. He stated after arriving at his residence, then he went to a movie where he was subsequently apprehended by the Dallas Police Department.

Oswald stated that his hours of work at the Texas School Book Depository are from 8 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., but that he is not required to punch a time clock. his usual place of work in the building is on the first floor; however, he frequently is required to go to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of the building in order to get books and this was true on November 22, 1963, and he had been on all of the floors in the performance of his duties on November 22, 1963.


 Thumb1:

He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository which Mr. truly and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at.

No.... He did NOT say that he saw "A" rifle (singular)...He said that he saw "Rifles"..  Mr Truly had ( this) rifle and two other rifles day before yesterday in Mr Truly's office.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 04:55:47 AM
Captain Fritz----------on this page as well as on the other pages-----------is taking notes as he listens to an interrogation report that has been recorded onto dictaphone.

Another example of Captain Fritz's reliance on some audio version of the FBI interrogation reports, whether played back on dictaphone or read out over the phone:

(https://i.imgur.com/5OcXlSH.jpg)

In Agent Bookhout's corresponding report, on which Captain Fritz's notes here are so obviously based, the words are written correctly: 'Paine', 'immigrants'.
But Captain Fritz writes 'Payne', 'Emigrants'!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 05:20:51 AM
Friends, we need to be very clear that Captain Fritz's notes rely slavishly on reports made by Agent Bookhout!

Example!

FRITZ NOTES:

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

CORRESPONDING BOOKHOUT INTERROGATION REPORT:

"Oswald stated that prior to coming to Dallas from New Orleans he had resided at a furnished apartment at 4706 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. While in New Orleans, he had been employed by William B. Riley Company, 640 Magazine Street, New Orleans."

But!

Inspector Thomas J. Kelley was present at the same interrogation and made a comprehensive report on it.
Unlike Agent Bookhout, Inspector Kelley heard Mr Oswald correctly:

"He stated in returning a question about his former addresses that he lived at 4907 Magazine Street in New Orleans at one time [...]"

(Note: Mr Oswald actually lived at 4905 Magazine St, but 4907 was the other apartment in the building. Bookhout's 4706 is, by contrast, way off-------and his error is perfectly replicated in Captain Fritz's note!)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 05:40:14 AM
Now!

It would be beyond mad to suggest that the slavish point-for-point correspondence of Captain Fritz's scribbled notes and Agent Bookhout's interrogation reports can be explained away as the coincident note-taking or recall of two different men sitting in on the same session.

Example!

Sticking with the Saturday morning interrogation that Agent Bookhout and Inspector Kelley both
------------attended
------------produced reports on...

Here's one phase, as covered in Agent Bookhout's report:

Oswald stated that Mrs. Pain[e] receives no pay for keeping his wife and children at her residence. He stated that their presence in Mrs. Paine's residence is a good arrangement for her because of her language interest, indicating that his wife speaks Russian and Mrs. Paine is interested in the Russian language.
Oswald denied having kept a rifle in Mrs. Paine's garage at Irving, Texas, but stated that he did have certain articles stored in her garage, consisting of two sea bags, a couple of suitcases, and several boxes of kitchen articles and also kept his clothes at Mrs. Paine's residence. He stated that all of the articles in Mrs. Paine's garage had been brought there about September, 1963, from New Orleans, Louisiana.
Oswald stated that he has had no visitors at his apartment on North Beckley.
Oswald stated that he has no receipts for purchase of any guns and has never ordered any guns and does not own a rifle nor has he ever possessed a rifle.
Oswald denied that he is a member of the Communist Party.
Oswald stated that he purchased a pistol, which was taken off him by police officers November 22, 1963, about six month ago. He declined to state where he had purchased it.


Here's the same phase, as covered by Inspector Kelley:

He stated that Mrs. Paine practices Russian by having his wife live with her. He denied that he had ever owned a rifle. He said he does not know Mr. Paine very well but that Paine usually comes by the place where his wife was living with Mrs. Paine on Friday or Wednesday. He stated that Mr. Paine has a car and Mrs. Paine has had two cars. He said in response to questions by Captain Fritz that two sea bags with some other packages containing his personal belongings and that he had brought those back form New Orleans with him sometime in September. He stated that his brother, Robert, lived at 7313 Davenport Street, Fort Worth, and that the Paines were his closest friends in town. He denied that he had ever joined the Communist party; that he never had a Communist card. He did belong to the American Civil Liberties Union and had paid $5 a year dues. He stated that he had bought the pistol that was found in his possession when he was arrested about seven month ago. He refused to answer any questions concerning the pistol or a gun until he talked to a lawyer.

Now! Had Captain Fritz scribbled this section of his notes while listening to dictaphone playback of Inspector Kelley's report, they would have looked a whole lot different to this!:

(https://i.imgur.com/hojGaJ6.jpg)

Instead, we get an uncanny point-for-point coincidence with Agent Bookhout's report. This coincidence, friends, is no coincidence! The notes DERIVE from the report!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 05:54:29 AM
Now!

Establishing the point-for-point derivation of Captain Fritz's notes from Agent Bookhout's reports is all too easy for every page except the one he marks '1':

(https://i.imgur.com/pygFD3k.jpg)

The bits marked in green here-------

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

---------are easily accounted for: Fritz is listening to Agent Bookhout's first solo report, which was dictated (i.e. recorded on dictaphone for typing up by stenographer?) on 11/25.

The rest of Fritz's sheet, however, has no such clear, unitary source!  :'(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 02:51:39 PM

The rest of Fritz's sheet, however, has no such clear, unitary source!  :'(

But! It does have a clear, unitary destination!

From Captain Fritz's own official interrogation report:

"Mr. Hosty asked Oswald if he had been in Russia. He told him, "yes, he had been in Russia three years." He asked him if he had written to the Russian Embassy, and he said he had. This man became very upset and arrogant with Agent Hosty when he questioned him and accused him of accosting his wife two different times. When Agent Hosty attempted to talk to this man, he would hit his fist on the desk. I asked Oswald what he meant by accosting his wife when he was talking to Mr. Hosty. He said Mr. Hosty mistreated his wife two different times when he talked with her, practically accosted her. Mr. Hosty also asked Oswald if he had been to Mexico City, which he denied. During this interview he told me that he had gone to school in New York and in Fort Worth, Texas, that after going into the Marines, finished his high school education. I asked him if he won any medals for rifle shooting in the Marines. He said he won the usual medals.

"I asked him what his political beliefs were, and he said he had none but that he belonged to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and told me that they had headquarters in New York and that he had been Secretary for this organization in New Orleans when he lived there. He also said that he supports the Castro Revolution. One of the officers had told me that he had rented the room on Beckley under the name of O. F. Lee. I asked him why he did this. He said the landlady did it. She didn't understand his name correctly."


Compare the yellowed bits!

(https://i.imgur.com/xRP8klo.jpg)

Nice, neat point-for-point correspondence!  Thumb1:

Now!

We can be pretty sure Captain Fritz did not write his official report and then make notes from it.
 
No! The notes were part of his preparation for writing the report!

But... when did he write up this report and dictate it?

The answer can be found at the bottom of page 12 of the report:

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

10 January 1964
----------no fewer than 47 days after Mr Oswald's death!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 03:37:48 PM

10 January 1964
----------no fewer than 47 days after Mr Oswald's death!

 Thumb1:

Now!

We know, from the above, that Captain Fritz prepared his full interrogation report for dictation at some point before 10 January 1964.

But when?

Clue!

On 23 December 1963, Captain Fritz wrote a report for the benefit of Chief Curry. It includes this:

(https://i.imgur.com/zVh3PgS.jpg)

 ???

Yes, friends, Captain Fritz, as of Christmas Eve-Eve, actually believes that Mr Oswald had been stopped "on the third or fourth floor on the stairway".

Sounds familiar? Yep. You got it------Officer Baker's disastrous 11/22 affidavit!

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

 :D

How and ever! By the time the befuddled Captain Fritz finds himself in front of the Warren Commission, on 22 April 1964, he will have a different story to tell:

Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?


"that they met him on the stairway"-----------notice the vagueness as to location (no 3rd/4th fl)!
"but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom"------------which investigation, precisely?

Why, Captain Fritz's investigation of-----i.e. his attentive listening to-----the first solo interrogation report of Agent Bookhout, the one where the 2nd fl lunchroom is made the site of Mr Oswald's claimed cop encounter!

This 'investigation' must have happened between Christmas Eve-Eve 1963 and 22 April 1964.

But the status of the scribbled 'Fritz notes' as preparation for the writing of the full report dictated 10 January 1964 allows us to be much more precise:

Captain Fritz listened to the Bookhout interrogation reports at some point between 23 December 1963 and 10 January 1964.

In other words... Captain Fritz wrote this-------

(https://i.imgur.com/qM8dsTh.jpg)

--------between 31 and 47 days after Mr Oswald's death
--------between 33 and 49 days after the first interrogation of Mr Oswald!

They are 33-49 days too late for 'contemporaneity'!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 04:53:39 PM
"The first officer to reach the six-story building, Lieutenant Curry said, found Oswald among other persons in a lunchroom."

New York Times, Nov 24th, Dallas.

The day before he said this, Chief Curry had been saying that Mr Oswald had been 'stopped' at the front entrance!

Where has Curry gotten this new idea of 'among other persons in a lunchroom' from? The lunchroom bit we understand, but not the 'among other persons' bit...

The 'among other persons' idea was to haunt the investigation for months! In September 1964, Mr Truly and Officer Baker were even asked to give statements whose sole purpose was to nix this rumor.

Curious!

 :-\
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 04:57:34 PM
"The first officer to reach the six-story building, Lieutenant Curry said, found Oswald among other persons in a lunchroom."

New York Times, Nov 24th, Dallas.

The day before he said this, Chief Curry had been saying that Mr Oswald had been 'stopped' at the front entrance!

Where has Curry gotten this new idea of 'among other persons in a lunchroom' from? The lunchroom bit we understand, but not the 'among other persons' bit...

The 'among other persons' idea was to haunt the investigation for months! In September 1964, Mr Truly and Officer Baker were even asked to give statements whose sole purpose was to nix this rumor.

Curious!

 :-\

Mr. BELIN. All right. When you left the lunchroom, did you leave with the other girls?
Mrs. REID. No; I didn't. The younger girls had gone and I left alone.
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.


Hmmm...  :-\
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 02, 2019, 05:09:34 PM
Mr. BELIN. All right. When you left the lunchroom, did you leave with the other girls?
Mrs. REID. No; I didn't. The younger girls had gone and I left alone.
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.


Hmmm...  :-\

From Agent Bookhout's first solo interrogation report:

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 form 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. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly

Again the curious impression that Mr Truly had not arrived with the police officer, and that the police officer departed on his own.

Again the curiously similar curious impression that Mrs Sanders reportedly got from talking to Mrs Reid (the woman who said she couldn't remember when 'they'----men who shall remain nameless-----left the lunchroom):

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

All I'm willing to say at this point is...

Curious!  :-\
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 02, 2019, 05:46:20 PM
From Agent Bookhout's first solo interrogation report:

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 form 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. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly

Again the curious impression that Mr Truly had not arrived with the police officer, and that the police officer departed on his own.

Again the curiously similar curious impression that Mrs Sanders reportedly got from talking to Mrs Reid (the woman who said she couldn't remember when 'they'----men who shall remain nameless-----left the lunchroom):

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

All I'm willing to say at this point is...

Curious!  :-\

Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room

This could be read as though Truly was there when Baker arrived.....But we know from films and photos that Truly followed Baker into the building....



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 02, 2019, 08:30:01 PM
There's ample evidence that Fritz jotted the notes down just as Lee was replying to the questions....

What ample evidence?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 12:18:01 AM

I think you?re on to something, Alan. Fritz didn?t take contemporaneous notes, so it makes sense that he used Bookhout?s and Kelly?s reports to refresh his memory.


Thank you, Mr Iacoletti!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 12:20:36 AM
Friends, if you want a giggle, go to 2:00 in and have a listen to Elmer Boyd's extremely evasive-mumbly answer to the question of where Mr Oswald (when in interrogation) said he was at the time of the assassination...


 :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 03, 2019, 12:47:00 AM
Because Virgie Rachley FBI statement refers to Carolyn Arnold, as having"accompanied" Rachley going outside of TSBD at time of 12:15, and yet Rachley did NOT see Oswald, then the sighting of Oswald IN the 2nd floor lunchroom by Arnold, in isolation, is a curious detail.

The door of the lunchroom would have to be OPEN to see anyone sitting at a table, if just bypassing thru the vestibule, on the way to the short 30 ft outer hallway, and then to a water fountain.
Reason given by Carolyn Arnold, in the Earl Gotz 1978 newpaper article, to go the 2nd floor lunchroom was "to get some water".

It is unclear is there was actually a sink with faucet IN the 2nd floor lunchroom or not, however.

There IS for certain, a water fountain located in the 30 ft section of outer hallway, between mens and womens bathrooms.

So its a question if Carolyn Arnold may have gone out the office back door to go to the water fountain, and then went down the 50 ft length of hallway , and then joined Rachley exiting the front door, which would be 12:15 approximately. There after "accompanying" Virgie the rest of the way out of TSBD.

If its the water fountain, then either Oswald was seen because Oswald was coming out of the 2nd floor lunchroom door, thus opening it, AS Carolyn went thru the vestibule, OR, when Carolyn was at the water fountain,, "getting some water", Oswald opened the HALLWAY door!!

If Oswald was opening the hallway door, that could only be to ENTER the outer hallway. And if Oswald was entering the hallway, it was probably for reason of going down it himself, to then head towards the front staircase, because HE TOO was taking the easiest route to get "out front" to "see the Presidential parade"
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 12:51:49 AM
Friends, one of the curiosities of how the BOOKHOUT-HOSTY interrogation report differs from the BOOKHOUT ALONE interrogation report is the way the first makes no mention of Mr Bill Shelley, whereas the second features him rather prominently!

Now!

Here we have a copy of that first joint report (disregard the green highlighting please!) on the top of which is handwritten the name of the man who goes curiously unmentioned in the report itself:

(https://i.imgur.com/XqP0Ev9.jpg)

'Shelly, William'!

Does anyone here know what 'KP' stands for?

I'm guessing it's not 'Kein Problem'!  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 01:03:09 AM

'Shelly, William'!

Does anyone here know what 'KP' stands for?

I'm guessing it's not 'Kein Problem'!  :D

'KP.' = Key Principal perhaps?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 01:09:03 AM
One thing is for sure-----------

By the time Agent Bookhout gets to dictate his solo report after Mr Oswald's death, it will have become safe to include in an interrogation report the name of 'KP. Shelly, William'.

(https://i.imgur.com/YCE7uI6.jpg)

Though the spelling of his name will still be causing a problem!

Mr Oswald did mention Mr Shelley's name in that first interrogation: he told Fritz he was standing beside him when the P. Parade went past the building.

Once the lunchroom story had moved Mr Oswald away from the front entrance for the P. Parade, 'KP. Shelly, William' became the man Mr Oswald claimed to have stood beside several minutes after the parade!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 01:16:02 AM

Mr Oswald did mention Mr Shelley's name in that first interrogation: he told Fritz he was standing beside him when the P. Parade went past the building.

Once the lunchroom story had moved Mr Oswald away from the front entrance for the P. Parade, 'KP. Shelly, William' became the man Mr Oswald claimed to have stood beside several minutes after the parade!

 Thumb1:

Friends, increase the brightness setting of your monitor, and look at
--------Mr Billy Lovelady
--------behind him: Mr Oswald
--------standing beside Mr Oswald: KP. Shelly, William.

(https://i.imgur.com/isJdAHB.gif) Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 03, 2019, 10:52:22 AM
[...]  Now let's assume for the sake of argument that Calvery's son really did correctly identify Calvery in Betzner-3 [...].  How are you certain that tall [black headscarf-wearing] woman in Zapruder is the same person as [black headscarf and] glasses-[wearing] woman in Betzner-3?
[...]

Iacoletti,

Look at the Z-film, Betzner-3, Willis-5, and Roberdeau's map -- on which he has John Templin and Ernest Brandt correctly identified, but the dot to the immediate left of Templin mysteriously unlabeled -- and I'm sure than even you can, by simultaneously referring to at least two of those four sources at any given time and noting the relative positions of Templin, Brandt, the Tall & Black-Headscarf/"Glasses-Wearing" Woman, and the Woman In All-White standing two people to her left, and, by actually DOING some honest mental triangulations of said figures in all four sources (if you are so capable), ... wah-lah ... correctly "connect the dots" regarding the positional relationship of that "mysto" dot to all of those people and ... gasp ... DEDUCE ... that yes!, the Tall & Black-Headscarf-Wearing Woman in Zapruder really is the same person as your Tall & "Glasses-Wearing" (as YOU so adroitly and correctly noticed, upon enlargement, presumably) ... Woman in Betzner-3.

Unless you don't want to, of course.

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on March 03, 2019, 02:47:33 PM
The Alleged Woman's Face : Transition Enlargement - Brightness And Contrast Enhancement Only.
If you are viewing on a PC, stand well back from your computer screen.

Source Gif: Creator Unknown.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/source.gif)

Transition Enlargement - Brightness And Contrast Enhancement Only 1:
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Pwoman2.gif)

Transition Enlargement - Brightness And Contrast Enhancement Only 2:
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Pwomantransition1.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 03, 2019, 03:27:24 PM
The Alleged Woman's Face : Transition Enlargement - Brightness And Contrast Enhancement Only.
If you are viewing on a PC, stand well back from your computer screen.

Source Gif: Creator Unknown.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/source.gif)

Transition Enlargement - Brightness And Contrast Enhancement Only 1:
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Pwoman2.gif)

Transition Enlargement - Brightness And Contrast Enhancement Only 2:
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Pwomantransition1.gif)

I have not followed this debate..... But as a casual observer, I can see that there is a young black man dressed in light khaki clothing standing next to the west side of the entrance to the TSBD.....    But in Altgen's #6 there is another man in that position ....  But everybody else seems to be in their same position in both photos.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 03:31:05 PM
Thank you for using the word 'alleged', Mr MacRae!  Thumb1:

Now! This is a curious gif indeed!

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

We start out with this---------

(https://i.imgur.com/kqpbgz6.jpg)

----------and end up with this:

(https://i.imgur.com/H3COD1A.jpg)

What has happened?

Why, the unknown creator has looked at the first frame and decided only to contrast-and-brightness-'enhance' a selected area of the figure.

In other words, they have decapitated the poor figure
--------and reduced its head to its tophat!  :D

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

This is the reason why supporters of the 'woman's face' notion always reproduce the 'woman's face' cropped at the top of 'her' 'head'. Very bogus!

Here, on the other hand, is what one gets if one does not pre-judge the issue and instead treats the entire figure with good old-fashioned parity of esteem:

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

You want a bit more?

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

The 'woman's face' is in fact the figure's upper-chest/neck/jaw area! As is the case with the strong majority of human beings, Prayer Man has a head above his neck!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 03, 2019, 03:51:55 PM
     The problem with you guys messing around with the darkness, image enhancement, etc = You losing Focus on the White Rectangular Shape stretching across the heart area. That rectangle looks like it is an ID Patch attached to a dark colored Jacket which also has an attached Hoody. The Hoody is maybe 3/4 of the way over the top of the head exposing a Widows Crop. It looks to be a heavy military rag-tag jacket with an attached ID Patch of some kind across the heart. Many of the Vietnam Vets continued wearing these same jackets when home in the early 70's. That white rectangle in the heart region rules out our seeing a female. No female image captured that day has anything like that contrasting color and size suddenly stretching across the heart area. I believe the enhancements do make Lovelady look more like Lovelady. I wonder what the Black Guy leaning against the Pillar is looking at? He appears to be gazing in the direction of Pergola/railroad yard.   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on March 03, 2019, 03:54:50 PM
The 'woman's face' is in fact the figure's upper-chest/neck/jaw area! As is the case with the strong majority of human beings, Prayer Man has a head above his neck!
 Thumb1:

And most people don't have a neck like a Giraffe, which is what would be required for your proposition. 

Prayer Giraffe :D

(https://media3.costumesinireland.ie/460-large_default/giraffe-man-costume.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 03:58:00 PM
And most people don't have a neck like a Giraffe, which is what would be required for your proposition.  :D

(https://media3.costumesinireland.ie/460-large_default/giraffe-man-costume.jpg)

Uh, no, that is not even nearly what would be required for my proposition, Mr MacRae, but nice try!  Thumb1:

Do you propose to deal with the proven selective 'enhancement' policy behind the gif?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on March 03, 2019, 04:13:50 PM
Do you propose to deal with the proven selective 'enhancement' policy behind the gif?
I have simply provided enlargements of the unknown creator's enhancement.
I do not need to deal with my own conclusions, ie, that the mystery person is a woman, and not a Giraffe. (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Mutley.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 04:14:55 PM
There is no real evidence that the FBI altered statements.  The recollections of Carolyn Arnold made 15 years after the fact are of little value.

Why are they of little value, pray?

All you're doing here is adopting a cover-up mentality that says, 'There was no cover-up because that would mean the official record is unreliable and the official record cannot be unreliable because that would point to a cover-up'. A silly, circular and sterile approach to the case!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 04:19:27 PM
I have simply provided enlargements of the unknown creator's enhancement.
I do not need to deal with my own conclusions, ie, that the mystery person is a woman, and not a Giraffe. (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Mutley.gif)

So... your conclusion is based on a gif that involves tendentiously selective 'enhancement' of the figure? Got it!   :D

Meanwhile, Prayer Man goes on raising the light-colored object to his mouth:

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 03, 2019, 04:25:36 PM

       "Enlarging" anything proffered by an "Unknown Creator" = a weak attempt at maintaining the status quo. I am not familiar with evidence being admitted into court from an "Unknown Creator".   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 05:17:01 PM
So! Where is the Prayer Man debate at now?

The Prayer Man side has the following inter alia:
-A figure in the doorway resembling Mr Oswald-----with no other even half-credible alternative candidate as yet put forward!  Thumb1:
-Interrogation draft report by Agent Hosty which tells us in the plainest English that Mr Oswald claimed to have a) bought a coke in the 2nd fl lunchroom before the parade, b) gone "outside to watch P. Parade"  Thumb1:
-DPD telling the press on 11/22 what Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes heard Mr Oswald telling Captain Fritz  Thumb1:

The Anybody But Oswald side has in toto the following:
-A hoax gif showing a bogus 'woman's face'  ::)
-A woman wearing a wig-in-a-professional-situation whom we know to have been to Mr Frazier's left for the motorcade ::)
-'It can't be Oswald because we know Oswald shot JFK!'  ::)
-Two Oswalds in the Depository building  ::)
-Complete splenetic inability to explain away the newly-revealed Hosty draft report  ::)

It's not even a contest, friends!  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 06:42:19 PM

-A woman wearing a wig-in-a-professional-situation whom we know to have been to Mr Frazier's left for the motorcade ::)



 :'(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 07:04:41 PM
Friends, Mr Billy Lovelady talked to a reporter from the Houston Post on 11/22:

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

The part I've boxed tells us that Mr Lovelady did not go to the railroad yards the way he would later claim. He stuck around and heard Mr Howard Brennan tell police about the man in the sixth floor!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 03, 2019, 08:05:30 PM

Here we have a copy of that first joint report (disregard the green highlighting please!) on the top of which is handwritten the name of the man who goes curiously unmentioned in the report itself:

(https://i.imgur.com/XqP0Ev9.jpg)

'Shelly, William'!


Now!

Our friend 'KP Shelly, William' appears on another FBI report, this time the 11/22 interview report for Mr Billy Lovelady:

(https://i.imgur.com/yJRt5qy.jpg)

The same red pencil!

The same anxiety!

KP Shelly was being named by Mr Oswald as the man he stood beside for the P. Parade!

Horribly, it was turning out that KP Shelly had been in just the spot Mr Oswald had identified!

 :'(

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 04, 2019, 12:47:54 AM
Here's what Mr Ochus Campbell is quoted as telling Kent Biffle of the Dallas Morning News 11/22:

(https://i.imgur.com/vO8XXTr.jpg)

So!
----------------'Campbell said he ran toward a grassy knoll west of the building'
----------------Meanwhile, Mr Truly and the officer ran into the building.

But!

Here's what Ms Pauline Sanders had to say:

(https://i.imgur.com/6x6gtoT.jpg)

So!
--------------Police officer ran into the building approx. 10 seconds after the shooting
--------------Shortly after this Mr Campbell arrived at the steps

So which was it? Did Mr Campbell run towards the grassy knoll, or did he go back to the front entrance of the Depository?

Further twist!

Here's what Mr Campbell is quoted as having told reporter from the New York Herald Tribune 11/22:

(https://i.imgur.com/8FGEnIh.jpg)

Who is the 'we' who ran back into the building?

Might it have been Mr Campbell and the person he had been with outside, Mrs R. A. Reid?

If so, did they enter into the lobby and see Mr Oswald in the 'small storage room' just to the right as you went in?

(https://i.imgur.com/5b76w5I.jpg)

Did Mrs Reid cry out to Mr Oswald, 'Someone shot the President! I hope he didn't hit him!'?

Was this the true origin of Mrs Reid's phoney 2nd fl office story?


If so, it would explain how Mr Campbell----who claimed not to have known Mr Oswald from Adam-----was able to identify him afterwards to reporters:
Mrs Reid already knew Mr Oswald to see!

The sequence of events would thus be pretty straightforward:

1. Officer Baker rushes in, asks Mr Oswald 'Do you work here' (--> he's looking for someone to show him to the stairs)
2. Mr Truly comes up and offers to help Officer Baker
3. Mr Oswald goes into the small storage room (for what reason?)
4. Mr Campbell & Mrs Reid enter the vestibule and, en route to the front stairs, notice Mr Oswald in the storage room.
5. Later that day, Mr Campbell gives the jist of both Oswald sightings (Officer/Truly + Campbell/Reid) to the NYHT reporter
6. However, by the time Mr Biffle hears him talking, Mr Campbell has written himself out of the whole thing --> perhaps Biffle asks him about the storage room detail he let out earlier and Mr Campbell, not being able to walk those words back on the spot, conflates the Baker/Truly vestibule incident with the storage room sighting.


Shortly after being spotted by Mr Campbell and Mrs Reid, Mr Oswald emerges from the small storage room--------------
(again: why was he there?)
--------------and is asked by a man flashing credentials of some sort where he can find the nearest telephone.

Mr Oswald helpfully points this man the way.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 04, 2019, 12:51:46 AM

Here's what Mr Campbell is quoted as having told reporter from the New York Herald Tribune 11/22:

(https://i.imgur.com/8FGEnIh.jpg)

Who is the 'we' who ran back into the building?

Might it have been Mr Campbell and the person he had been with outside, Mrs R. A. Reid?

If so, did they enter into the lobby and see Mr Oswald in the 'small storage room' just to the right as you went in?

(https://i.imgur.com/5b76w5I.jpg)

Did Mrs Reid cry out to Mr Oswald, 'Someone shot the President! I hope he didn't hit him!'?

Was this the true origin of Mrs Reid's phoney 2nd fl office story?


 Thumb1:

Now!

The above scenario would tally very nicely indeed with the testimony of Mrs Geneva L. Hine:

Mr. BALL. Do you have any definite recollection of Mrs. Reid coming in?
Miss HINE. No, sir; I only saw four or five people that came by and they all came and were all talking about how terrible it was.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember their names?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Who were they?
Miss HINE. Mr. Williams, Mr. Molina (spelling), Miss Martha Reid, Mrs. Reid, Mrs. Sarah Stanton, and Mr. Campbell; that's all I recall, sir.


 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 04, 2019, 01:05:40 AM
Now!

The above scenario would tally very nicely indeed with the testimony of Mrs Geneva L. Hine:

Mr. BALL. Do you have any definite recollection of Mrs. Reid coming in?
Miss HINE. No, sir; I only saw four or five people that came by and they all came and were all talking about how terrible it was.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember their names?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Who were they?
Miss HINE. Mr. Williams, Mr. Molina (spelling), Miss Martha Reid, Mrs. Reid, Mrs. Sarah Stanton, and Mr. Campbell; that's all I recall, sir.


 Thumb1:

Now!

Here's what Ms Karen Westbrook says Mrs Reid was telling her supervisees up in the office shortly after the assassination:

?Mrs Reid said that she?when everybody was walking and milling and so forth?that Lee came to the door with a coke in his hand and said, ?What?s all the excitement about???

When everybody was walking and milling and so forth-----------this does not describe the empty office 2 minutes after the assassination, does it?

It describes the front lobby (or, if you prefer: the vestibule)!

Was the door that Mr Oswald came to (in Ms Westbrook's words) the door of the small storage room mayhap? Or even the glass front door to the building?

Certainly the incident as Ms Westbrook remembers Mrs Reid as having told it makes no sense in a space------the second-floor office area------in which there were no people at all 'walking and milling about'!

I think Mrs Reid blabbed to her co-workers about having seen Mr Oswald in or near the storage room just after the shooting and was unable to walk it back.

After the Baker/Oswald/Truly encounter at the front entrance had been moved up to the 2nd fl lunchroom, poor Mrs Reid had little choice but to move her own Oswald sighting up a story too!

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 04, 2019, 01:20:33 AM
Now!

Here's what Ms Karen Westbrook says Mrs Reid was telling her supervisees up in the office shortly after the assassination:

?Mrs Reid said that she?when everybody was walking and milling and so forth?that Lee came to the door with a coke in his hand and said, ?What?s all the excitement about???

When everybody was walking and milling and so forth-----------this does not describe the empty office 2 minutes after the assassination, does it?

It describes the front lobby (or, if you prefer: the vestibule)!

Was the door that Mr Oswald came to (in Ms Westbrook's words) the door of the small storage room mayhap? Or even the glass front door to the building?

Certainly the incident as Ms Westbrook remembers Mrs Reid as having told it makes no sense in a space------the second-floor office area------in which there were no people at all 'walking and milling about'!

I think Mrs Reid blabbed to her co-workers about having seen Mr Oswald in or near the storage room just after the shooting and was unable to walk it back.

After the Baker/Oswald/Truly encounter at the front entrance had been moved up to the 2nd fl lunchroom, poor Mrs Reid had little choice but to move her own Oswald sighting up a story too!

 Thumb1:

I think Mrs Reid blabbed to her co-workers about having seen Mr Oswald in or near the storage room just after the shooting and was unable to walk it back.

I think Mrs Reid blabbed to her co-workers about having seen Mr Oswald just after the shooting, was nothing but office gossip , and was unable to walk it back.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 04, 2019, 01:54:52 AM

I think Mrs Reid blabbed to her co-workers about having seen Mr Oswald in or near the storage room just after the shooting and was unable to walk it back.

After the Baker/Oswald/Truly encounter at the front entrance had been moved up to the 2nd fl lunchroom, poor Mrs Reid had little choice but to move her own Oswald sighting up a story too!

 Thumb1:

And then there's this from Mr Campbell's FBI interview 11/24:

(https://i.imgur.com/jqs3zob.jpg)

So! The rush towards the grassy knoll which he told Mr Biffle about turns out only to have been a movement of 'a few feet'----------after which he returned to the building.

The grounds for believing that Mr Campbell and Mrs Reid saw Mr Oswald as they passed the 'small storage room' just off the front lobby, by the front stairs-------

(https://i.imgur.com/AQ06OUD.jpg)

--------are strong!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 04, 2019, 02:09:25 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/AQ06OUD.jpg)

Friends, I cannot shake the suspicion----------and it's no more than that---------that Mr Oswald's reason for going into that small storage room right after the shooting was to check on a rifle he had brought to work. Once he found it gone, he realised he had been tricked.

It would explain a lot, starting with his departure from the Depository and his movements thereafter...

Could his being tricked have a link to an incident recorded in Agent Hosty's contemporaneous notes?:

(https://i.imgur.com/k6mVAkr.jpg)

Mr Truly, remember, was to be the man who would shop him to DPD.

 :-\
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 04, 2019, 05:13:45 AM
Look at the Z-film, Betzner-3, Willis-5, and Roberdeau's map -- on which he has John Templin and Ernest Brandt correctly identified, but the dot to the immediate left of Templin mysteriously unlabeled -- and I'm sure than even you can, by simultaneously referring to at least two of those four sources at any given time and noting the relative positions of Templin, Brandt, the Tall & Black-Headscarf/"Glasses-Wearing" Woman, and the Woman In All-White standing two people to her left, and, by actually DOING some honest mental triangulations of said figures in all four sources (if you are so capable), ... wah-lah ... correctly "connect the dots" regarding the positional relationship of that "mysto" dot to all of those people and ... gasp ... DEDUCE ... that yes!, the Tall & Black-Headscarf-Wearing Woman in Zapruder really is the same person as your Tall & "Glasses-Wearing" (as YOU so adroitly and correctly noticed, upon enlargement, presumably) ... Woman in Betzner-3.

How about you show your own ?mental triangulations? instead of ?proving? your claim by demanding that I do it?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 04, 2019, 11:32:36 AM
BS. Pure speculation is not ?dead proof? of anything.

If you watch the whole interview, Frazier gestures with his right hand frequently.

 Thumb1:

"And I turned to Sarah..."

(https://i.imgur.com/oE20JDa.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 04, 2019, 07:28:04 PM


As a reminder:

The PrayerPersonImage identity issue, as I recall, developed in about 2013, some 50years, one-half century, after the 11/22/'63 assassination of USP JohnKennedySr, and critical wounding of TxG JohnConnallyJr in Dallas' DealeyPlaza, just after their vehicle passing the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building Elm St entrance portal at 12:30pm CST. The pictures of the portal area are most likely film stills taken from a moving MotorcadeVehicle, by a hand held motion picture imaging camera.

The PrayerPersonImage is in my conclusion, along with others as well, representing a female then employed at the TSBD Bldg who was, as most of the bldg employees, outside during lunchtime to view the passing motorcade.

The PrayerPersonImage identity had not previously been an issue, as it had no bearing on the evidence relative to the shootings and assassination. That was until someone came along and decided that PrayerPersonImage represented a male, and therefor decided to reference PrayerPersonImage as PrayerMan apparently because PrayerPersonImage had not, at least to someone, been positively identified.

But, there is more, as since not otherwise identified, someone decided that their PrayerManImageTheory included the now deceased accused assassination shooter, LeeHarveyOswald, since he also was then employed at the TSBD Bldg and had also not yet been positively identified, in their opinion, anywhere else as filmed at about 12:30pm,CST. Remembering of course, that LeeHarveyOswald was himself shot and killed, while in police custody, on the morning of 11/24/'63, just two days after the fatal shooting of President Kennedy and critical wounding of Governor Connally. He was also the primary suspect in the shooting death of DPD Officer JD Tippit in Dallas' OakCliff area about 45 minutes after the DealeyPlaza shootings.

So, the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory was born. However, since a SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter occurred with LeeHarveyOswald and TSBD BuildingSuperintendent RoyTruly along with DPD MotorcyclePatrolOfficer MarrionBaker at about 12:31pm/12:32pm CST 11/22/'63, a timing problem issue developed. OfficerBaker was a MotorcadeEscort, following several vehicles behind the Presidential Limousine, and he was approaching the TSBD Bldg just ahead of him as he rode along northbound on Houston St, when the shots were fired at the motorcade that had turned onto Elm St and was then westbound. When he reached Elm St, he parked his motorcycle and entered the TSBD Bldg to do a preliminary search, accompanied by RoyTruly. But, unable to locate a then viable suspect, and with other LawOfficers now searching the bldg, OfficerBaker rejoined the Motorcade that had gone to ParklandHospital. Therefor, for the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerMan Theory to now work, the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter HoaxTheory was born, due to the timing of both situational events. However, the SecondFloor LunchRoomEncounter has reliable provable evidence that it occurred at about 90 to 120 seconds after the DealeyPlaza shooting, and there is no reliable provable evidence indicative of it being a Hoax.

Now, with a history changing event like the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, stories can be told, and articles written, likely by professional story tellers and article writers. And possibly a book, or several books, can be written and then sold. Maybe even a movie or two can be made.

Testimony and sworn statements offer valid evidence that LeeHarveyOswald was not on the landing or stairs as  filming took place. But, testimony and sworn statements place two otherwise unidentified known occupants, SarahStanton and PaulineSanders, on the landing/stairs at the time of the assassination/shooting. So, with questionable if any, positive image identity produced by image viewing alone, the eyewitness testimony narrows the choices to SarahStanton and PaulineSanders.

In any event, research has now developed evidence indicative of SarahStanton as being the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, aka PrayerWomanImage. So, in an effort for accuracy and true image identification, an ongoing debate and evidence dispute continues.


However, said conclusions are based on reliable indicative evidence.

As it stands, it stands as...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 04, 2019, 09:00:09 PM
As it stands, it stands as...

That's an excellent summation Mr Trotter.....Thank You
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 04, 2019, 11:37:50 PM
And then there's this from Mr Campbell's FBI interview 11/24:

(https://i.imgur.com/jqs3zob.jpg)

So! The rush towards the grassy knoll which he told Mr Biffle about turns out only to have been a movement of 'a few feet'----------after which he returned to the building.

The grounds for believing that Mr Campbell and Mrs Reid saw Mr Oswald as they passed the 'small storage room' just off the front lobby, by the front stairs-------

(https://i.imgur.com/AQ06OUD.jpg)

--------are strong!

 Thumb1:


I think you can see a man who looks pretty much exactly like Mr Campbell, running as far as to the Stemmons freeway sign, in the Malcom Couch film at about 8 secs into the film, as Couch pans away from where Mrs Reid is standing with other women.

That puts Mr. Campbell approximately 100 ft away from where he was standing on the curb with Mrs Reid as seen in the Wiegman film.

But then one has to wonder how Couch film could have caught Mr. Campbell doing this at 32 seconds post shots, when Mr. Campbell AND Mrs Reid both suggest as parting occured AT the 3rd shot fired. So if Mr Campbell began running towards the Stemmons freeway sign 1 or 2 seconds post last shot fired, he cwould have run 100 ft EASILY by 15 secs. NOT 32 secs.

So something is off on the Couch film supposedly starting at 24 sec post shots. To have capture Weigman turning around at 15 sec post shot and Campbell running by Stemmons sign at 15 secs post last shot, and this seen at the 8 sec mark in Couch film would defacto require Couch film to have begone at 7 seconds post last shot.

If Couch really caught Baker running past, why didnt Couch mention this in his WC testimony. Couch only refers to the getting a CLOSEUP of an officer with gun drawn. Thats NOT Baker. That  closeup of a cop is when Couch cuts and restarts his camera as they travel down Elm st and the officer is seen to left of the car as they go past him.

So this puts into the question since, Mrs Reid has DISSAPPEARED in the Darnell film, but is apparently being caught at 24 seconds post shots by Couch film and Baker running past, HOW is this possible? A couple of other people seem to vanish also, in the overlapp comparison of Couch and Darnell, and this suggests one of the films is later than the other.

Then one has to question if there is any way possible that the Couch film is a composite film of Darnell catching Baker running at 24 sec post shots, overlayed with Couch film that actually began at 5 to 7 seconds post shots.

This would make it SEEM like Mrs Reid was there when Baker ran past, while in fact, Mrs Reid could have left at about 10 sec post shots, she being completely 180 turned around and facing TSBD just before Couch film pans away about 5 sec into Couch film.

One has to wonder why Mrs Reid also has NO mention of Baker almost running right thru her. Neither Couch nor Reid, nor any other of those women whom apparently Baker is running thru made any mention of seeing a DPD officer running thru them.

Very curious.


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 06:34:54 AM

[...]

So this puts into the question since, Mrs Reid has DISSAPPEARED in the Darnell film, [...]

We don't know what Mrs Reid looked like!


Quote
Then one has to question if there is any way possible that the Couch film is a composite film of Darnell catching Baker running at 24 sec post shots, overlayed with Couch film that actually began at 5 to 7 seconds post shots.

No!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 05, 2019, 03:02:39 PM

I think you can see a man who looks pretty much exactly like Mr Campbell, running as far as to the Stemmons freeway sign, in the Malcom Couch film at about 8 secs into the film, as Couch pans away from where Mrs Reid is standing with other women.

That puts Mr. Campbell approximately 100 ft away from where he was standing on the curb with Mrs Reid as seen in the Wiegman film.

But then one has to wonder how Couch film could have caught Mr. Campbell doing this at 32 seconds post shots, when Mr. Campbell AND Mrs Reid both suggest as parting occured AT the 3rd shot fired. So if Mr Campbell began running towards the Stemmons freeway sign 1 or 2 seconds post last shot fired, he cwould have run 100 ft EASILY by 15 secs. NOT 32 secs.

So something is off on the Couch film supposedly starting at 24 sec post shots. To have capture Weigman turning around at 15 sec post shot and Campbell running by Stemmons sign at 15 secs post last shot, and this seen at the 8 sec mark in Couch film would defacto require Couch film to have begone at 7 seconds post last shot.

If Couch really caught Baker running past, why didnt Couch mention this in his WC testimony. Couch only refers to the getting a CLOSEUP of an officer with gun drawn. Thats NOT Baker. That  closeup of a cop is when Couch cuts and restarts his camera as they travel down Elm st and the officer is seen to left of the car as they go past him.

So this puts into the question since, Mrs Reid has DISSAPPEARED in the Darnell film, but is apparently being caught at 24 seconds post shots by Couch film and Baker running past, HOW is this possible? A couple of other people seem to vanish also, in the overlapp comparison of Couch and Darnell, and this suggests one of the films is later than the other.

Then one has to question if there is any way possible that the Couch film is a composite film of Darnell catching Baker running at 24 sec post shots, overlayed with Couch film that actually began at 5 to 7 seconds post shots.

This would make it SEEM like Mrs Reid was there when Baker ran past, while in fact, Mrs Reid could have left at about 10 sec post shots, she being completely 180 turned around and facing TSBD just before Couch film pans away about 5 sec into Couch film.

One has to wonder why Mrs Reid also has NO mention of Baker almost running right thru her. Neither Couch nor Reid, nor any other of those women whom apparently Baker is running thru made any mention of seeing a DPD officer running thru them.

Very curious.

       Assigning timelines to JFK Assassination witnesses based on the currently accepted timelines of assassination films/images is a Huge Mistake. Especially when the Wiegman Film is involved. For roughly 40 years it was merely accepted/rubber stamped that Wiegman shot his film Continuously. Today, we Know that is Total BS. As Wiegman was running around the knoll, he claimed in Trask's "Pictures Of The Pain" that he saw SA Lem Johns UP on the knoll. Somehow, the image of SA Lem Johns avoided being captured Anywhere on the Wiegman Film. As long as this Black Hole remains in the Wiegman Film, using it to timeline anything or anybody immediately after the assassination will result in the absolute confusion lamented above.   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 05, 2019, 05:45:32 PM

    My personal opinion based on 40 years of listening to the Ever Morphing Story promoted by Buell Frazier = his Not being a Reliable Witness. I believe Frazier is sincere about whatever he might be saying, but  as used to be said regarding individuals such as this, "Nobody's home".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
    As I said, Frazier's story has consistently changed over the last 40+ years. Relying on someone that after 40+ years Suddenly starts telling everyone he was going to deck Fritz is Not where you want to go.

Mr Storing, I think that's too sweeping a statement. Mr Frazier's story has not "consistently changed". Many key elements have remained invariable.

Such as----------for instance-----------CE-142 being too long to be the bag Mr Oswald brought to work the morning of 11/22/63.

And----------for another instance------------his placing of Ms Stanton to his left at the top of the front entrance!

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 08:06:57 PM
Thumb1:

"And I turned to Sarah..."

(https://i.imgur.com/oE20JDa.gif)

Context!

(https://i.imgur.com/T3BEXbV.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 05, 2019, 08:10:54 PM

            Yeah, give it another year and Buell will recall being in the TSBD Domino Room on the morning of the assassination and giving Oswald a "hot foot" during break time. How could a guy for roughly 50 years make absolutely No Mention of almost Decking the Capt of Homicide/Will Fritz on the very day of the assassination?  Frazier is Not a Reliable source.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 08:15:50 PM
            Yeah, give it another year and Buell will recall being in the TSBD Domino Room on the morning of the assassination and giving Oswald a "hot foot" during break time. How could a guy for roughly 50 years make absolutely No Mention of almost Decking the Capt of Homicide/Will Fritz on the very day of the assassination?  Frazier is Not a Reliable source.

Again, your thinking here is too black-and-white, Mr Storing---------Mr Frazier is not Jean Hill!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 05, 2019, 08:26:40 PM
Mr Storing, I think that's too sweeping a statement. Mr Frazier's story has not "consistently changed". Many key elements have remained invariable.

Such as----------for instance-----------CE-142 being too long to be the bag Mr Oswald brought to work the morning of 11/22/63.

And----------for another instance------------his placing of Ms Stanton to his left at the top of the front entrance!

 Thumb1:
Q: Where did you watch the parade from, what location?
A: I watched the parade from the top of the steps there, the main entrance into Texas School Books.
Q: Let me impose on you one more time and ask you to leave the witness chair and come down here and point out where you viewed the parade from. Would you do that, please?
A: Right here. It is the main entrance right here. There in the shadows you have several steps and a rail, and I was standing right there at the top of the rail.
Q: Referring you to an exhibit which has been marked for the purposes of identification as State-36, can you see the Texas School Book Depository in this exhibit?
A: Yes, sir, the Texas School Book Depository would be there.
Q: Can you see in this exhibit where you parked that morning?
A: No, sir, I cannot, because like I told you a while ago --
THE COURT: We can't hear you.
THE WITNESS: No, sir, I cannot.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Can you see the spot where you were situated when the presidential motorcade came by?
A: Yes, sir, I can.
Q: Will you take this symbol and place it at that location where you were standing?
A: (The witness complies.)
Q: Mr. Frazier, do you recall who you were with during the presidential motorcade?
A: Yes, sir, I can. When I was standing there at the top of the stairs I was standing there by a heavyset lady who worked up in our office, her name is Sara, I forget her last name, but she was standing right there beside me when we watched the motorcade.
Q: Do you recall anyone else who may have been with you?
A: Right down in front of me at the bottom of the steps my foreman Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady were standing there.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 08:28:21 PM
Q: Where did you watch the parade from, what location?
A: I watched the parade from the top of the steps there, the main entrance into Texas School Books.
Q: Let me impose on you one more time and ask you to leave the witness chair and come down here and point out where you viewed the parade from. Would you do that, please?
A: Right here. It is the main entrance right here. There in the shadows you have several steps and a rail, and I was standing right there at the top of the rail.
Q: Referring you to an exhibit which has been marked for the purposes of identification as State-36, can you see the Texas School Book Depository in this exhibit?
A: Yes, sir, the Texas School Book Depository would be there.
Q: Can you see in this exhibit where you parked that morning?
A: No, sir, I cannot, because like I told you a while ago --
THE COURT: We can't hear you.
THE WITNESS: No, sir, I cannot.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Can you see the spot where you were situated when the presidential motorcade came by?
A: Yes, sir, I can.
Q: Will you take this symbol and place it at that location where you were standing?
A: (The witness complies.)
Q: Mr. Frazier, do you recall who you were with during the presidential motorcade?
A: Yes, sir, I can. When I was standing there at the top of the stairs I was standing there by a heavyset lady who worked up in our office, her name is Sara, I forget her last name, but she was standing right there beside me when we watched the motorcade.
Q: Do you recall anyone else who may have been with you?
A: Right down in front of me at the bottom of the steps my foreman Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady were standing there.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 09:03:55 PM
Isn't the "Prayer person" standing to the west side of the handrail that divided the front steps?   Isn't Prayer person nearly touching the west side of the entrance alcove?   

Where did Frazier say he was standing..... "I was standing right there at the top of the rail."

And did Frazier say that heavy set Sara was standing to his left?   

Unless I'm built wrong.... and I was BWF.... Prayer person would be to my right.....

Quite right----and already long ago accepted by the sane ones in our midst!  Thumb1:

Quote
I don't know what the argument is about....

Sure you do------whether Mr Oswald's suppressed claim to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade" is vindicated by the Hughes, Wiegman and Darnell films!  Thumb1:

Quote
but Prayer person is a female.....

Care to suggest a name?  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 05, 2019, 09:12:56 PM
Quite right----and already long ago accepted by the sane ones in our midst!  Thumb1:

Sure you do------whether Mr Oswald's suppressed claim to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade" is vindicated by the Hughes, Wiegman and Darnell films!  Thumb1:

Care to suggest a name?  :)

Lee told the interrogators that he was in the first floor lunchroom when the parade passed by......  I see nobody who resembles Lee Oswald in any of these pictures....

I believe Lee Oswald..... And he had gone to the second floor lunchroom to buy a coke at the time that JFK lost his mind....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 09:20:01 PM
Lee told the interrogators that he was in the first floor lunchroom when the parade passed by......

Oh, stop playing dumb, you silly silly boy!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/bEXuLJC.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 05, 2019, 09:26:06 PM
Oh, stop playing dumb, you silly silly boy!  :D

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

     What we see above would be consistent with a person coming down from an Upper Floor of the TSBD at lunchtime. 2nd floor = buy soda pop, 1st Floor = Eat Lunch, Outside = "watch P. Parade"
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 05, 2019, 09:48:52 PM
"Fritz said in his Warren Commission testimony that he was pretty sure Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots"...

Fritz said in his Warren Commission testimony that he was pretty sure Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...

"Pretty sure" is the same as saying ....I'm not sure....  IOW.... Fritz was lying....

That's NOT what Lee said....  Lee said that he was in the first floor lunchroom when the parade passed by.....  And he said he went to the second floor lunchroom about that same time.  and he NEVER EVER said anything about hear any shots.

      With regard to Fritz being "pretty sure" Oswald told him he was "in the 2nd floor lunchroom during the shots", why was this Important Information NOT in Fritz's Notes?  The answer would be because it Never happened. When under oath, "pretty sure" protects a person from being subjected to Perjury Charges.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 05, 2019, 09:54:02 PM
     What we see above would be consistent with a person coming down from an Upper Floor of the TSBD at lunchtime. 2nd floor = buy soda pop, 1st Floor = Eat Lunch, Outside = "watch P. Parade"

Exactly---not complicated!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 05, 2019, 11:21:04 PM
Lee told the interrogators that he was in the first floor lunchroom when the parade passed by......  I see nobody who resembles Lee Oswald in any of these pictures....

I believe Lee Oswald..... And he had gone to the second floor lunchroom to buy a coke at the time that JFK lost his mind....

Oh, stop playing dumb, you silly silly boy!  :D

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



Exactly---not complicated!  Thumb1:
      With regard to Fritz being "pretty sure" Oswald told him he was "in the 2nd floor lunchroom during the shots", why was this Important Information NOT in Fritz's Notes?  The answer would be because it Never happened. When under oath, "pretty sure" protects a person from being subjected to Perjury Charges.
     What we see above would be consistent with a person coming down from an Upper Floor of the TSBD at lunchtime. 2nd floor = buy soda pop, 1st Floor = Eat Lunch, Outside = "watch P. Parade"

Every time I read the quoted notes of the Fritz interrogations, I seem to read the same thing as WaltCakebread, and I notice that the 'rephrasing' done by RoyellStoring ::), and quoted by AlanFord ???, seems to have overlooked that after purchasing a CocaCola in the SecondFloorLunchRoom to have with lunch, LeeHarveyOswald then returned to the first floor to eat lunch. THEN went outside to watch P Parade.
There is 'under oath' testimony that places LeeHarveyOswald in the SecondFloorLunchRoom at 70 to 90 seconds after the shooting of GovernorConnally and assassination of PresidentKennedy. So, the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter with OfficerBaker and SuperintendentTruly places LeeOswald there after the DealeyPlaza shots were fired.

Corrected to read-"notes of the Fritz interrogations".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 06, 2019, 12:28:49 AM
      With regard to Fritz being "pretty sure" Oswald told him he was "in the 2nd floor lunchroom during the shots", why was this Important Information NOT in Fritz's Notes?  The answer would be because it Never happened. When under oath, "pretty sure" protects a person from being subjected to Perjury Charges.

     What we see above would be consistent with a person coming down from an Upper Floor of the TSBD at lunchtime. 2nd floor = buy soda pop, 1st Floor = Eat Lunch, Outside = "watch P. Parade"


Every time I read the quoted Fritz notes, I seem to read the same thing as WaltCakebread, and I notice that the 'rephrasing' done by RoyellStoring ::), and quoted by AlanFord ???, seems to have overlooked that after purchasing a CocaCola in the SecondFloorLunchRoom to have with lunch, LeeHarveyOswald then returned to the first floor to eat lunch. THEN went outside to watch P Parade.
There is 'under oath' testimony that places LeeHarveyOswald in the SecondFloorLunchRoom at 70 to 90 seconds after the shooting of GovernorConnally and assassination of PresidentKennedy. So, the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter with OfficerBaker and SuperintendentTruly places LeeOswald there after the DealeyPlaza shots were fired.

     The Notes regarding Oswald claiming to have gone outside to "watch the P. Parade" were recorded within 3 Hours of the Kill Shot. The WC testimony was recorded AFTER the J Edgar/LBJ Lone Nut narrative had traveled down the Law Enforcement grapevine.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 06, 2019, 01:35:12 AM
      With regard to Fritz being "pretty sure" Oswald told him he was "in the 2nd floor lunchroom during the shots", why was this Important Information NOT in Fritz's Notes?  The answer would be because it Never happened. When under oath, "pretty sure" protects a person from being subjected to Perjury Charges.

     What we see above would be consistent with a person coming down from an Upper Floor of the TSBD at lunchtime. 2nd floor = buy soda pop, 1st Floor = Eat Lunch, Outside = "watch P. Parade"


Every time I read the quoted Fritz notes, I seem to read the same thing as WaltCakebread, and I notice that the 'rephrasing' done by RoyellStoring ::), and quoted by AlanFord ???, seems to have overlooked that after purchasing a CocaCola in the SecondFloorLunchRoom to have with lunch, LeeHarveyOswald then returned to the first floor to eat lunch. THEN went outside to watch P Parade.
There is 'under oath' testimony that places LeeHarveyOswald in the SecondFloorLunchRoom at 70 to 90 seconds after the shooting of GovernorConnally and assassination of PresidentKennedy. So, the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter with OfficerBaker and SuperintendentTruly places LeeOswald there after the DealeyPlaza shots were fired.

after purchasing a Coca-Cola in the Second Floor Lunch Room to have with lunch, Lee Harvey Oswald then returned to the first floor to eat lunch. THEN went outside to watch P Parade.

Yes, That's the way I see it, and that's the way Bookhout has it recorded in his report on page 619 of the WR.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 06, 2019, 01:49:05 AM
     The Notes regarding Oswald claiming to have gone outside to "watch the P. Parade" were recorded within 3 Hours of the Kill Shot. The WC testimony was recorded AFTER the J Edgar/LBJ Lone Nut narrative had traveled down the Law Enforcement grapevine.

Can you provide reliable provable evidence as to exactly what time, and date, the referenced notes were actually written down?
And, is it your claim that RoyTruly and MarrionBaker made false statements, under oath, about the SecondFloorLunchRoom Encounter? If so, can you offer reliable provable evidence for such claim?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 06, 2019, 04:57:48 AM
Can you provide reliable provable evidence as to exactly what time, and date, the referenced notes were actually written down?
And, is it your claim that RoyTruly and MarrionBaker made false statements, under oath, about the SecondFloorLunchRoom Encounter? If so, can you offer reliable provable evidence for such claim?

      The Hosty Notes have the date/time written on them. They were taken at the 1st Oswald Interrogation. I believe you would agree that Oswald would be hard pressed to be Outside "watching the P.  Parade" and then inside the 2nd Floor Lunch Room as testified to by Truly & Baker. Just because Oswald claimed this at his 3:15 Interrogation does Not make it a fact. On the other hand, based on the layout/floor plan of the 2nd Floor, I do Not believe Officer Baker's story of initially seeing Oswald through the small window on the door leading into the vestibule. That dog don't hunt.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 06, 2019, 05:02:29 AM
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Note.png)

    BUMP
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 06, 2019, 06:32:47 AM
      The Hosty Notes have the date/time written on them. They were taken at the 1st Oswald Interrogation. I believe you would agree that Oswald would be hard pressed to be Outside "watching the P.  Parade" and then inside the 2nd Floor Lunch Room as testified to by Truly & Baker. Just because Oswald claimed this at his 3:15 Interrogation does Not make it a fact. On the other hand, based on the layout/floor plan of the 2nd Floor, I do Not believe Officer Baker's story of initially seeing Oswald through the small window on the door leading into the vestibule. That dog don't hunt.

I suppose my concern is based on some indication that CaptainFritz may have made notes from memory, which to me is problematic itself, but I also wonder if the FBI Agents' notes were all taken during interrogations, or if some sharing occurred, especially since the 3:15pm interrogation apparently had already begun when Agents Hosty and Bookhout arrived.
As for the SFLRE, I believe it occurred as testimony indicates, and OfficerBaker caught a glimpse of movement, just inside the lunch room door and moving away from the door window, as he rounded the floor enroute to the next flight of stairs.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 06, 2019, 06:50:18 AM
    BUMP

Note still says "to eat lunch.Then went outside..."
So, to me, if LHO went outside "after lunch", it had to be several minutes after the DealeyPlaza shots were fired.
"That dog" has no need to hunt...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 01:09:57 PM
Note still says "to eat lunch.Then went outside..."
So, to me, if LHO went outside "after lunch", it had to be several minutes after the DealeyPlaza shots were fired.
"That dog" has no need to hunt...

The problem is solved by finishing the crucial sentence instead of using ellipses:

"Then went outside to watch P. Parade."

Not possible that he went outside to watch the Presidential parade 'several minutes after the DealeyPlaza shots were fired'.

Mr Oswald claimed to have been out front when the President passed the building!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 03:01:14 PM

The name "Shelly" has been typed over what appears to be the name Lovelady.


Nope-------the misspelling has merely been corrected!

(https://i.imgur.com/6ILUijH.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 06, 2019, 03:12:29 PM
Nope-------the misspelling has merely been corrected!

(https://i.imgur.com/6ILUijH.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Thank you....It is much easier to see on my monitor....Even using a Mag glass it's not easy to see in the WR.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 03:23:46 PM
Thank you....It is much easier to see on my monitor....Even using a Mag glass it's not easy to see in the WR.

No problem, Mr Cakebread----some of those photocopies are of dire quality!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 06, 2019, 06:03:54 PM
      The Hosty Notes have the date/time written on them. They were taken at the 1st Oswald Interrogation. I believe you would agree that Oswald would be hard pressed to be Outside "watching the P.  Parade" and then inside the 2nd Floor Lunch Room as testified to by Truly & Baker. Just because Oswald claimed this at his 3:15 Interrogation does Not make it a fact. On the other hand, based on the layout/floor plan of the 2nd Floor, I do Not believe Officer Baker's story of initially seeing Oswald through the small window on the door leading into the vestibule. That dog don't hunt.

Just so I can be confident that I correctly understand your comment, are you stating that LeeHarveyOswald claimed to have been outside and "watching the P Parade", prior to the SFLRE that has evidence of occurrence at 75 to 90 seconds after the shooting of GovernorConnally and assassination of PresidentKennedy?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 06, 2019, 06:14:08 PM
The problem is solved by finishing the crucial sentence instead of using ellipses:

"Then went outside to watch P. Parade."

Not possible that he went outside to watch the Presidential parade 'several minutes after the DealeyPlaza shots were fired'.

Mr Oswald claimed to have been out front when the President passed the building!

 Thumb1:

I don't recall ever believing LeeOswald claimed to be out front when the President passed the building! Nor do I believe so now, and I can't imagine that I would ever believe he made such claim, as I have never encountered reliable provable indicative evidence that he did.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 06, 2019, 07:11:27 PM
I don't recall ever believing LeeOswald claimed to be out front when the President passed the building! Nor do I believe so now, and I can't imagine that I would ever believe he made such claim, as I have never encountered reliable provable indicative evidence that he did.

Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Lee Oswald swore they were in the second floor lunchroom AFTER the P. Parade had passed by ......
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 06, 2019, 07:26:09 PM
Not any eyewitness ever placed LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance stairs/landing at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63, and/or the time of the assassination shooting of USP JohnKennedySr and critical wounding of TxG JohnConnallyJr.

Not any photograph shows LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance stairs/landing at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63, and/or the time of the assassination shooting of USP JohnKennedySr and critical wounding of TxG JohnConnallyJr.

Not any film/video shows LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance stairs/landing at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63, and/or the time of the assassination shooting of USP JohnKennedySr and critical wounding of TxG JohnConnallyJr.

Considering that evidence has been developed, and provided, that is indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing SarahDeanStanton, any credible claim that PrayerPersonImage represents someone other than SarahDeanStanton should be accompanied by evidence indicative of said claim.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 06, 2019, 08:04:39 PM
Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Lee Oswald swore they were in the second floor lunchroom AFTER the P. Parade had passed by ......

As I recall first seeing the posted "P Parade" quoted reference to the "noted comments" supposedly made by LeeOswald, I felt then, as I do now, quite possibly "P Parade" was an ad libitum by the note taker's interpretation regarding the stated activities during and/or about the time of the Motorcade passing the TSBD Bldg.
Admittedly, of course, a conclusion, and should anyone wish to conclude disagreement, that is beyond question their prerogative to do so and express such. However, any credible claim that my conclusion is totally wrong should be accompanied by reliable provable indicative evidentiary information.

Edit:Spelling correction...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 08:24:32 PM
Considering that evidence has been developed, and provided, that is indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing SarahDeanStanton,

LOL.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 06, 2019, 08:25:29 PM
As I recall first seeing the posted "P Parade" quoted reference to the "noted comments" supposedly made by LeeOswald, I felt then, as I do now, quite possibly "P Parade" was an ad libitum by the note taker's interpretation regarding the stated activities during and/or about the time of the Motorcade passing the TSBD Bldg.
Admittedly, of course, a conclusion, and should anyone wish to conclude disagreement, that is beyond question their prerogative to do so and express such. However, any credible claim that my conclusion is totally wrong should be accompanied by reliable provable indicative evidentury information.

We know that the President had already passed the TSBD when Baker and Truly met Lee Oswald in the second floor lunchroom, because Baker sad that he saw the Lincoln disappearing beneath the underpass as he turned his motorcycle west onto Elm street...... He was in the second floor lunchroom with Lee Oswald less than 60 seconds later.    So Lee could not have gone outside to watch the P. Parade....Because it was gone.....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 08:32:33 PM
However, any credible claim that my conclusion is totally wrong should be accompanied by reliable provable indicative evidentury information.

How about you provide reliable provable indicative evidentury [sic] information that supports your conclusion?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 06, 2019, 08:38:23 PM
As I recall first seeing the posted "P Parade" quoted reference to the "noted comments" supposedly made by LeeOswald, I felt then, as I do now, quite possibly "P Parade" was an ad libitum by the note taker's interpretation regarding the stated activities during and/or about the time of the Motorcade passing the TSBD Bldg.
Admittedly, of course, a conclusion, and should anyone wish to conclude disagreement, that is beyond question their prerogative to do so and express such. However, any credible claim that my conclusion is totally wrong should be accompanied by reliable provable indicative evidentury information.

     So exactly how does a person "WATCH" a Pre Parade?  There is Nothing going on for Oswald to WATCH. Also, Bear in mind the word WATCH is being notated by a Trained G-Man = his knowing the Importance of the nomenclature he is employing.  Plus, why would anyone Abbreviate the word PRE? Jotting down the letter P followed by that Period = 2 symbols vs PRE = 3. Who uses an abbreviation to save themselves from having to write a mere 1 extra letter?  In my opinion at the 3:15 Oswald Interrogation he did say he went outside to watch the presidential parade, though this was a lie. I believe Oswald used the term "Presidential Parade" to avoid specifically naming Kennedy and Immediately attaching himself to JFK.  This was written down due to the LBJ/J Edgar LN Theory not having been distributed down the Law Enforcement Food Chain at that time. These Notes being written on the Back Side of a DPD Affidavit Form were Lost and buried in the National Archives. Otherwise, they would have been Destroyed.   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 06, 2019, 08:42:42 PM
We know that the President had already passed the TSBD when Baker and Truly met Lee Oswald in the second floor lunchroom, because Baker sad that he saw the Lincoln disappearing beneath the underpass as he turned his motorcycle west onto Elm street...... He was in the second floor lunchroom with Lee Oswald less than 60 seconds later.    So Lee could not have gone outside to watch the P. Parade....Because it was gone.....

    Anybody wonder why Officer Baker allegedly believing there was an Active Shooter on the roof of the TSBD did NOT ride his motorcycle right up to the front steps of the TSBD vs turning the corner onto Elm and then having to run across the street?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 08:45:42 PM
    Anybody wonder why Officer Baker allegedly believing there was an Active Shooter on the roof of the TSBD did NOT ride his motorcycle right up to the front steps of the TSBD vs turning the corner onto Elm and then having to run across the street?

Probably because mowing over a group of spectators isn't a good career move...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 06, 2019, 08:51:25 PM
How about you provide reliable provable indicative evidentury [sic] information that supports your conclusion?

Reliable provable indicative e-v-i-d-e-n-t-i-a-r-y information is not required to support said conclusion. And, as I work on my spellin', maybe you can work on your readin'...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 06, 2019, 08:55:27 PM
     So exactly how does a person "WATCH" a Pre Parade?  There is Nothing going on for Oswald to WATCH. Also, Bear in mind the word WATCH is being notated by a Trained G-Man = his knowing the Importance of the nomenclature he is employing.  Plus, why would anyone Abbreviate the word PRE? Jotting down the letter P followed by that Period = 2 symbols vs PRE = 3. Who uses an abbreviation to save themselves from having to write a mere 1 extra letter?  In my opinion at the 3:15 Oswald Interrogation he did say he went outside to watch the presidential parade, though this was a lie. I believe Oswald used the term "Presidential Parade" to avoid specifically naming Kennedy and Immediately attaching himself to JFK.  This was written down due to the LBJ/J Edgar LN Theory not having been distributed down the Law Enforcement Food Chain at that time. These Notes being written on the Back Side of a DPD Affidavit Form were Lost and buried in the National Archives. Otherwise, they would have been Destroyed.   

I don't recall ever indicating anything regarding any Pre Parade, if you can produce said comment I will acknowledge your effort.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 08:55:56 PM
Reliable provable indicative e-v-i-d-e-n-t-i-a-r-y information is not required to support said conclusion. And, as I work on my spellin', maybe you can work on your readin'...

Ah, is that how it works?  Your conclusions require no evidence, but people require evidence to question your conclusions?  Nice double standard.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 06, 2019, 08:57:08 PM
Probably because mowing over a group of spectators isn't a good career move...

     Baker did Not have to mow anybody over.   Based on the Wiegman/Darnell films, there were More people streaming Down Elm + Baker on foot having to weave his way through people between his parked motorcycle and the TSBD vs the number of people Directly in front of the TSBD.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 06, 2019, 09:11:54 PM
Ah, is that how it works?  Your conclusions require no evidence, but people require evidence to question your conclusions?  Nice double standard.
No double standard sir, read my post, and you are welcome to your own conclusion, as I stated, but any claim that my conclusion is wrong, requires evidence to be credible. Otherwise, simply a conclusion.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2019, 09:20:16 PM
No double standard sir, read my post, and you are welcome to your own conclusion, as I stated, but any claim that my conclusion is wrong, requires evidence to be credible. Otherwise, simply a conclusion.

I claim that your conclusion is unsubstantiated.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" -- Hitchens' razor
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 06, 2019, 09:29:45 PM
When the conspirators "re-enacted" the imaginary scenario ...they started the stopwatch at the sound of the first shot when Baker had just turned right onto Houston from Main .....  ( incidentally ----Baker looked up toward the TSBD upper floors at the sound of the shot...and he saw NOTHING that drew his attention to the SE corner sixth floor window)  They stopped the watch when Baker reached the top step of the stairs on the second floor .....The first try was timed at 90 seconds...the second try 75 seconds....  So there were still two more shots to be fired when Baker started for the Roof of the TSBD.....I must have taken him at least 30 seconds to reach the curb near the front of the TSBD and park his bike.

     When you have a Witness doing multiple dress rehearsals with the Prosecuting Attorney they are getting their story straight.  This is why believing the Officer Baker testimony is hard to do. The WC Lawyer and Baker were doing their own version of Edgar Bergen & Charlie McCarthy.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 06, 2019, 09:31:16 PM
As I recall first seeing the posted "P Parade" quoted reference to the "noted comments" supposedly made by LeeOswald, I felt then, as I do now, quite possibly "P Parade" was an ad libitum by the note taker's interpretation regarding the stated activities during and/or about the time of the Motorcade passing the TSBD Bldg.
Admittedly, of course, a conclusion, and should anyone wish to conclude disagreement, that is beyond question their prerogative to do so and express such. However, any credible claim that my conclusion is totally wrong should be accompanied by reliable provable indicative evidentiary information

Edit:Spelling correction...

You want reliable provable indicative evidentiary information?

Coming right up!

Going outside to watch the Presidential Parade means going outside to watch the Presidential Parade.

You're welcome!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 06, 2019, 09:33:39 PM
     So exactly how does a person "WATCH" a Pre Parade?  There is Nothing going on for Oswald to WATCH. Also, Bear in mind the word WATCH is being notated by a Trained G-Man = his knowing the Importance of the nomenclature he is employing.  Plus, why would anyone Abbreviate the word PRE? Jotting down the letter P followed by that Period = 2 symbols vs PRE = 3. Who uses an abbreviation to save themselves from having to write a mere 1 extra letter?  In my opinion at the 3:15 Oswald Interrogation he did say he went outside to watch the presidential parade, though this was a lie. I believe Oswald used the term "Presidential Parade" to avoid specifically naming Kennedy and Immediately attaching himself to JFK.  This was written down due to the LBJ/J Edgar LN Theory not having been distributed down the Law Enforcement Food Chain at that time. These Notes being written on the Back Side of a DPD Affidavit Form were Lost and buried in the National Archives. Otherwise, they would have been Destroyed.   

These Notes being written on the Back Side of a DPD Affidavit Form were "Lost"and buried in the National Archives. Otherwise, they would have been Destroyed.   

Some of the information that has surfaced seems to have been hidden from LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee" so they couldn't destroy it.

An example:....  133c....  A Back Yard photo that I believe is the photo that Fritz displayed to Lee Oswald at lunchtime on Saturday 11/23/63 ( they hadn't found the other BY photos at the house of Paine,  at the time they showed Lee the BY photo)   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 07, 2019, 12:10:00 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Ur1eOil.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/OmzLh8x.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/NgTN9TN.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/9hpWIKM.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/XrCkV7Q.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 07, 2019, 12:25:52 AM
     When you have a Witness doing multiple dress rehearsals with the Prosecuting Attorney they are getting their story straight.  This is why believing the Officer Baker testimony is hard to do. The WC Lawyer and Baker were doing their own version of Edgar Bergen & Charlie McCarthy.

The WC Lawyer and Baker were doing their own version of Edgar Bergen & Charlie McCarthy.

WHO?....  You must be an old fart.....  :D   But Yes I agree....

But I was merely pointing out lapse of time after the shooting that Baker Truly and Oswald were in the second floor lunchroom....

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on March 07, 2019, 12:32:12 AM
I claim that your conclusion is unsubstantiated.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" -- Hitchens' razor

It is my drawn conclusion that your claim lacks credibility. And, I would hope that if I make any assertion(s), I will have provable evidentiary information to rely on. But, I do believe this discussion has concluded.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 07, 2019, 02:47:28 AM
We don't know what Mrs Reid looked like!


No!

We  that older woman with white scarf nearly arm in arm with Mr Campbell, the man with the black hat and the dark suit , on the Elm St. curb as seen in the pan of Wiegman film, fits the testimony of Mr Reid having stood together with Mr Campell.


If the Couch film is a not a composite, and did not start at 6 to 7 second post last shot, then explain Weigman in the background of Couch film on the Grassy Knoll, who is seen momentarily standing and not moving as though he is still running his camera, filming Pergola, and then he turns around and walks towards the Newmans.


If Wiegman had cut his film at 15 secs post last shot, which is the 30 sec mark in his film, since he heard the last shot fired approx 15 seconds into his film either right AT he stepped off the car, or even possibly AS HE WAS RUNNING towards the GK.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 07, 2019, 04:49:42 AM
The WC Lawyer and Baker were doing their own version of Edgar Bergen & Charlie McCarthy.

WHO?....  You must be an old fart.....  :D   But Yes I agree....

But I was merely pointing out lapse of time after the shooting that Baker Truly and Oswald were in the second floor lunchroom....

    Having a deep regard for History would include Radio, TV, and The Cinema.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on March 07, 2019, 07:04:46 AM
(Five Images)

She carried well....and worked late into her pregnancy,

Quote
Name   Genelyn Nmn Arnold
Event Type   Birth
Event Date   24 Dec 1963
Event Place   Dallas, Texas
Gender   Female
L'il brother, the last child of this short lived marriage, was born in early 1967. So, did they really enjoy a Christmas
tree at the TSBD, just weeks after the world class tragedy, or, if Carolyn is indeed the pregnant employee in the photos
you've shared, might they be celebrating the 1966 Christmas holiday? Hmmmmm.

Quote
https://www.babygaga.com/15-common-lies-most-pregnant-women-tell-and-get-away-with/
15 Common Lies Most Pregnant Women Tell And Get Away With
by B. Red ? on May 27, 2017 in Incredible

...The little white lies don't hurt anyone, and they may continue to pour out at a faster speed after becoming pregnant. When a woman becomes pregnant there are many added stresses that come with it. It can become overwhelming very quickly.

It seems like other mothers love sharing all the details of their pregnancy/birth experience with a pregnant mother-to-be. While their intentions are probably good, sometimes a pregnant woman just doesn't care about anyone else's pregnancy. When...

BTW, this nut "fixed her wagon," admitting he received no response from her to his inquiry, by posting her current name and
the names of all who are closest to her, on his website. Thuggery? Why not man up and simply hold her hostage until she spills her guts?
Quote
...Carolyn Arnold has not responded to any form of communication from me and others at !!!!!!. ....love to have a chat with her to clear a few things up. ...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on March 07, 2019, 06:57:50 PM
FWIW.... I would say the photos are of the same woman.....with span of 33 years between the photos.

FWIW, your conclusion is worth about as much as a US VP of that era described his job as....a bucket of warm....
It is no wonder you've posted so often....all chit-chat. Another  of your Osment moments!

(If the one percent chance you were posting a joke was your atual intent, pleace accept my apology.)

Quote
Before 'I See Dead People,' Haley Joel Osment Saw Casting ... - NPR
https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=422317464
Jul 12, 2015 - RATH: Actor Haley Joel Osmond. Catch him in the new miniseries "The Spoils Before Dying" on IFC. You don't have to see dead people to ...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 08, 2019, 02:18:55 AM

[...]

There is no "Mrs. Reid" on the sidewalk outside the Depository during the motorcade.  Brian's brilliant "analysis" there was that there is a picture of Leavelle sitting outside the homicide bureau next to a woman (who may have been Jack Ruby's sister) on Sunday after Oswald was shot, and the woman superficially resembles a woman in the Cook/Cooper film standing outside the depository after the assassination.  And since Reid was 51 at the time of the assassination, and this woman looks kinda middle-aged, this must be her.  And since Leavelle said he took a deposition from Reid (although that happened on Saturday), then this must be Mrs. Reid (even though neither one of them look anything like the known pictures of Jeraldean Reid).

[...]

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/fake-mrs-reid.png)

Iacoletti,

Who's that woman standing directly below the word "McGRAW" in the sign?
.....

"Known photographs of Jeraldean Reed."

Where are they, John?
.....

Didn't Jeraldean say in her FBI statement or some such thing that she'd watched the mororcade not far from Roy Truly and Ochus Campbell?  (And they, her?)

Just curious: Have you been able to spot either of those two guys in the photos/films taken during the motorcade?

Like on the sidewalk near the right side of the steps in the Wiegman film, for example?
.....

If so, was Your Jeraldean Reid relatively near them?
.....

How about the woman, above (below McGRAW)?

Was she standing near Campbell and/or Truly in any of the photos or films taken during the motorcade?
.......

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 08, 2019, 06:53:13 PM
Iacoletti,

Who's that woman standing directly below the word "McGRAW" in the sign?
.....

"Known photographs of Jeraldean Reed."

Where are they, John?
.....

Didn't Jeraldean say in her FBI statement or some such thing that she'd watched the mororcade not far from Roy Truly and Ochus Campbell?  (And they, her?)

Just curious: Have you been able to spot either of those two guys in the photos/films taken during the motorcade?

Like on the sidewalk near the right side of the steps in the Wiegman film, for example?
.....

If so, was Your Jeraldean Reid relatively near them?
.....

How about the woman, above (below McGRAW)?

Was she standing near Campbell and/or Truly in any of the photos or films taken during the motorcade?
.......

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)


I would like to clear this up too, because I have been going on the PRESUMPTION that the older looking woman (somewhat "plump)  with the white scarf on,  standing to the right of Mr Campbell, as viewed from Wiegman film angle, is Mrs Reid. And that SAME woman with white scarf can be seen in the Couch flim as Baker runs like a ghost image right thru this crowd of women. Since the conventional accepted current time of Couch film is that it doesn't start until 24 sec post shot approx., and if that woman is Reid, then that precludes an early meeting with Oswald BEFORE Baker and Truly, in the 2nd floor office, unless it turns out that either Couch film is a composite and they added in Bakers motorcycle from Darnell film somehow, from a later start of DArnell film at 25 sec post shots., OR, the woman is white scarf seen turning 180 degrees as Baker runs past her is NOT Mrs Reid.

I stil have not resolved with certainty, the  Weigman standing on the GK at 15 sec post last shot fired, still apparently filming the HEsters which is IN the Couch film at the 8 sec mark into Couch film. That would make that event of Weigman be 32 sec post last shots, which IS NOT the CASE as per Wiegmans own film which has him jumping off his car AT approx 15 sec mark in his own film. But thats AT or just BEFORE the last shot is fired, when Wiegman jumped off, so since his camera kept going continuously until its finally stopped AT about the 30 sec mark in the video recording of his film, that would make his having cut his camera AT 15 sec post LAST shot fired.

All i can surmise is that for some reason, Weigman cut his camera at 15 sec post last shot, then stood there frozen, on the Grassy Knoll, doing nothing but holding his camera AS THOUGH her were still filming, but really was not, and stood there for another 17 secs before he then decided to turn around and  walk down towards the Newmans, where he restarted his camera again.. This seems (imo), an odd thing to do for an experienced cameraman such as Weigman to do, since Malscom Couch makes reference that in the camera buisness, even just a 10 second period of time is LONG time. So I have to wonder would an experienced camera man just do nothing for 17 seconds, during the most critical period of time in the aftermath of the shooting.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 08, 2019, 08:13:33 PM

I would like to clear this up too, because I have been going on the PRESUMPTION that the older looking woman (somewhat "plump)  with the white scarf on,  standing to the right of Mr Campbell, as viewed from Wiegman film angle, is Mrs Reid. And that SAME woman with white scarf can be seen in the Couch flim as Baker runs like a ghost image right thru this crowd of women. Since the conventional accepted current time of Couch film is that it doesn't start until 24 sec post shot approx., and if that woman is Reid, then that precludes an early meeting with Oswald BEFORE Baker and Truly, in the 2nd floor office, unless it turns out that either Couch film is a composite and they added in Bakers motorcycle from Darnell film somehow, from a later start of DArnell film at 25 sec post shots., OR, the woman is white scarf seen turning 180 degrees as Baker runs past her is NOT Mrs Reid.

Zeon,

http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-5057-0-39721100-1438148486_thumb.jpg

The arrow on the right is pointing to Roy Truly, the arrow on the left is pointing to a man some researchers and students used to believe was Truly until I discovered the real-deal Truly on the right.

I believe that is Ochus Campbell standing in front of him (i.e., in front of real-deal Roy Truly, on the right).

Are we "on the same page" regarding Campbell?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 08, 2019, 08:21:03 PM

I would like to clear this up too, because I have been going on the PRESUMPTION that the older looking woman (somewhat "plump)  with the white scarf on,  standing to the right of Mr Campbell, as viewed from Wiegman film angle, is Mrs Reid. And that SAME woman with white scarf can be seen in the Couch flim as Baker runs like a ghost image right thru this crowd of women. Since the conventional accepted current time of Couch film is that it doesn't start until 24 sec post shot approx., and if that woman is Reid, then that precludes an early meeting with Oswald BEFORE Baker and Truly, in the 2nd floor office, unless it turns out that either Couch film is a composite and they added in Bakers motorcycle from Darnell film somehow, from a later start of DArnell film at 25 sec post shots., OR, the woman is white scarf seen turning 180 degrees as Baker runs past her is NOT Mrs Reid.

I stil have not resolved with certainty, the  Weigman standing on the GK at 15 sec post last shot fired, still apparently filming the HEsters which is IN the Couch film at the 8 sec mark into Couch film. That would make that event of Weigman be 32 sec post last shots, which IS NOT the CASE as per Wiegmans own film which has him jumping off his car AT approx 15 sec mark in his own film. But thats AT or just BEFORE the last shot is fired, when Wiegman jumped off, so since his camera kept going continuously until its finally stopped AT about the 30 sec mark in the video recording of his film, that would make his having cut his camera AT 15 sec post LAST shot fired.

All i can surmise is that for some reason, Weigman cut his camera at 15 sec post last shot, then stood there frozen, on the Grassy Knoll, doing nothing but holding his camera AS THOUGH her were still filming, but really was not, and stood there for another 17 secs before he then decided to turn around and  walk down towards the Newmans, where he restarted his camera again.. This seems (imo), an odd thing to do for an experienced cameraman such as Weigman to do, since Malscom Couch makes reference that in the camera buisness, even just a 10 second period of time is LONG time. So I have to wonder would an experienced camera man just do nothing for 17 seconds, during the most critical period of time in the aftermath of the shooting.

       Time Lining Any Eyewitness movements via the Wiegman Film is a Mistake. The Wiegman Film was cavalierly accepted by Old Guard JFK Assassination Researchers for 40+ years as having been filmed Continuously. Of course, this Continuous stuff is Total Baloney. You mention Wiegman, "WALK down towards the Newmans". The figure ID'd as Wiegman coming down the knoll on the Couch Film is Sprinting not walking. Wiegman claims: (1) he got out of his Camera Car Before the Kill Shot was fired, and (2) "felt Compression on my FACE" from the 3rd shot. If Wiegman jumped out of that car at the corner of Houston & Elm and Oswald was firing that Kill Shot shot from the TSBD 6th Floor downward toward the Stemmons Sign area, just how is Wiegman physically feeling the effect of that shot?. The only logical explanation for Wiegman feeling "compression" would be due to a shot being fired from a Lower Elevation than the TSBD 6th floor.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 08, 2019, 09:00:26 PM
No, you got booted off Morissette's group for the same reason you get booted off every other group -- for being a belligerent, insulting, narcissistic jerk.  Don't blame me for your misconduct.

There is no "Mrs. Reid" on the sidewalk outside the Depository during the motorcade.  Brian's brilliant "analysis" there was that there is a picture of Leavelle sitting outside the homicide bureau next to a woman (who may have been Jack Ruby's sister) on Sunday after Oswald was shot, and the woman superficially resembles a woman in the Cook/Cooper film standing outside the depository after the assassination.  And since Reid was 51 at the time of the assassination, and this woman looks kinda middle-aged, this must be her.  And since Leavelle said he took a deposition from Reid (although that happened on Saturday), then this must be Mrs. Reid (even though neither one of them look anything like the known pictures of Jeraldean Reid).

So, instead of concluding that this is a misidentification, Brian's learned conclusion is that there must have been two Jeraldean Reids to go along with his two Oswalds.
 :D

Which one is Mrs Reid?.....   The color photo is a different woman.... If the color photo is Reid then the one talking to the detective is not Mrs Reid....
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/jeraldean-1967.jpg)
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/fake-mrs-reid.png)


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 09, 2019, 11:54:21 PM
From Agent Bookhout's first solo interrogation report:

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 form 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. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly

Again the curious impression that Mr Truly had not arrived with the police officer, and that the police officer departed on his own.

Again the curiously similar curious impression that Mrs Sanders reportedly got from talking to Mrs Reid (the woman who said she couldn't remember when 'they'----men who shall remain nameless-----left the lunchroom):

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

All I'm willing to say at this point is...

Curious!  :-\

Friends, the above has been niggling away at me the past few days...  :-\

Now!

Mr B. Kamp has just come up with some new treasures from his archival dig, and my eye was caught by this report on the HSCA's May 1978 interview of W. P. Gannaway:

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

Just suppose for a moment that someone in DPD did know about Mr Oswald's background and took steps to 'cover' him the day of the motorcade.

This might have entailed approaching his boss Mr Truly ahead of 11/22 and informing him, 'One of our men will be checking in on this Oswald fellow shortly before the motorcade. Can you appoint a place etc...'

Worth at least a thought, no?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 10, 2019, 12:08:57 AM
Friends, the above has been niggling away at me the past few days...  :-\

Now!

Mr B. Kamp has just come up with some new treasures from his archival dig, and my eye was caught by this report on the HSCA's May 1978 interview of W. P. Gannaway:

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

Just suppose for a moment that someone in DPD did know about Mr Oswald's background and took steps to 'cover' him the day of the motorcade.

This might have entailed approaching his boss Mr Truly ahead of 11/22 and informing him, 'One of our men will be checking in on this Oswald fellow shortly before the motorcade. Can you appoint a place etc...'

Worth at least a thought, no?

 Thumb1:

It certainly seems quite bizarre----quite random-----that the Warren Commission, just on the eve of the Report's submission, would expressly ask Mr Truly and Officer Baker to make an explicit statement each to the effect that Mr Oswald was the only person in the lunchroom!

This from Mr Truly:

(https://i.imgur.com/L7lq5cS.jpg)

That's quite a lot of apparently unnecessary protesting going on there, ladies and gentlemen of the jury!

Now of course this may simply be more CYA for the front entrance encounter between Mr Oswald and Officer Baker, which happened in a crowded area (and was-----oops!-------described to the press by DPD on 11/22).

But... I can't help but wonder whether something else might not be behind this, something that happened before the motorcade--and was witnessed by other employees?

 :o
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 10, 2019, 12:19:49 AM
       Time Lining Any Eyewitness movements via the Wiegman Film is a Mistake. The Wiegman Film was cavalierly accepted by Old Guard JFK Assassination Researchers for 40+ years as having been filmed Continuously. Of course, this Continuous stuff is Total Baloney. You mention Wiegman, "WALK down towards the Newmans". The figure ID'd as Wiegman coming down the knoll on the Couch Film is Sprinting not walking. Wiegman claims: (1) he got out of his Camera Car Before the Kill Shot was fired, and (2) "felt Compression on my FACE" from the 3rd shot. If Wiegman jumped out of that car at the corner of Houston & Elm and Oswald was firing that Kill Shot shot from the TSBD 6th Floor downward toward the Stemmons Sign area, just how is Wiegman physically feeling the effect of that shot?. The only logical explanation for Wiegman feeling "compression" would be due to a shot being fired from a Lower Elevation than the TSBD 6th floor.

The only logical explanation for Wiegman feeling "compression" would be due to a shot being fired from a Lower Elevation than the TSBD 6th floor.

Not only a lower elevation.....If Wiegman felt the concussion on his face then the weapon was in front of him....

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 10, 2019, 02:23:14 PM
It certainly seems quite bizarre----quite random-----that the Warren Commission, just on the eve of the Report's submission, would expressly ask Mr Truly and Officer Baker to make an explicit statement each to the effect that Mr Oswald was the only person in the lunchroom!

This from Mr Truly:

(https://i.imgur.com/L7lq5cS.jpg)

That's quite a lot of apparently unnecessary protesting going on there, ladies and gentlemen of the jury!

Now of course this may simply be more CYA for the front entrance encounter between Mr Oswald and Officer Baker, which happened in a crowded area (and was-----oops!-------described to the press by DPD on 11/22).

But... I can't help but wonder whether something else might not be behind this, something that happened before the motorcade--and was witnessed by other employees?

 :o

If there is anything to this, then my money would be on Mrs Reid as one of those employees.

It might help explain this bizarre exchange during her testimony:

Mr. DULLES. Yes. Attorney General Carr, do you have any questions?
Mr. CARR. Mrs. Reid, have you had occasion to visit with any of Oswald's relatives, his wife or mother?
Mrs. REID. No.
Mr. CARR. Have they been in there since that date to look over the premises?
Mrs. REID. His mother has been but I didn't see her. She didn't go any further than the first floor I understand, but I have never seen her other than these pictures.
Mr. DULLES. Is it usual for the employees of the depository to have friends visit them during office hours or would that be an unusual practice?
Mrs. REID. No; that would not be unusual. Family or somebody wanted to drop by to see you they never have objected to that.
Mr. BELIN. I think the record should show we are offering in evidence this morning, Mr. Dulles, Commission Exhibit 507 which is the diagram of the seventh floor which Officer Baker testified to.
Mr. DULLES. You want that admitted now?
Mr. BELIN. We want that admitted now.
Mr. DULLES. No objection. It will be admitted.
(The diagram referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 507 for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. BELIN. I think those are all the questions we have of Mrs. Reid.


Why was Mr Carr's line of questioning closed down?

Had Mrs Reid, under a pang of conscience, made an approach at some point to one of the Mrs Oswald's??

 :-\
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Dale Nason on March 10, 2019, 07:05:52 PM
Does seem a little strange. The line of questioning was cut off. Wonder why?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 10, 2019, 07:19:18 PM
Does seem a little strange. The line of questioning was cut off. Wonder why?

 Thumb1:

What had Mr Carr heard that made him ask such a leftfield question of Mrs Reid?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 10, 2019, 07:20:42 PM
Zeon,

http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-5057-0-39721100-1438148486_thumb.jpg

The arrow on the right is pointing to Roy Truly, the arrow on the left is pointing to a man some researchers and students used to believe was Truly until I discovered the real-deal Truly on the right.

I believe that is Ochus Campbell standing in front of him (i.e., in front of real-deal Roy Truly, on the right).

Are we "on the same page" regarding Campbell?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)


YES!! :) Thats man on the Elm st. curb. Dark hat, dark suit. To his immediate left is presumablly Mrs Reid, an older (50+yrs) woman with the white scarf.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 10, 2019, 08:26:59 PM
       Time Lining Any Eyewitness movements via the Wiegman Film is a Mistake. The Wiegman Film was cavalierly accepted by Old Guard JFK Assassination Researchers for 40+ years as having been filmed Continuously. Of course, this Continuous stuff is Total Baloney. You mention Wiegman, "WALK down towards the Newmans". The figure ID'd as Wiegman coming down the knoll on the Couch Film is Sprinting not walking. Wiegman claims: (1) he got out of his Camera Car Before the Kill Shot was fired, and (2) "felt Compression on my FACE" from the 3rd shot. If Wiegman jumped out of that car at the corner of Houston & Elm and Oswald was firing that Kill Shot shot from the TSBD 6th Floor downward toward the Stemmons Sign area, just how is Wiegman physically feeling the effect of that shot?. The only logical explanation for Wiegman feeling "compression" would be due to a shot being fired from a Lower Elevation than the TSBD 6th floor.

Thats a very interesting detail. It is  more verification of this time line of Weigman film running as he stepped off car, which is at the 15 sec mark in HIS film, is therefore reasonable plausible to conclude that at least he has heard A SHOT at that point, which is at least the 3rd shot heard. So if his camera is finally stopped after filming the Hesters at the Pergola structure, at 30 sec mark in his film,thats actually therefore 15 sec post last shot he "heard'.

There could have been a 4th shot, as Amos Euins heard, which is the one  Wiegman heard AS he was running towards the GK, and its that shot that caused the concussion force, on Wiegmans face, now FACING the GK, as he is running towards it.

The only other explanation would be a false association of perhaps a wind gust of 20-25mph hour which was occuring at random intervals that day, that struck Weigman, much the same as Baker says a gust almost made him lose control of his bike trying to turn it at only 7-10mph.

Either way though, Weigmans timeline is therefore stopping his camera finally at about 15 seconds from having jumped from his car, and hearing a shot, and this is when Couch also sees a rifle in the window, and his car only 60 ft from turning on Elm st. How does it take Couch 25 seconds more to respond, when his WC testimony implies he immediatley reached for his camera upon seeing the rilfle, and made a quick adjustment and then started filming. That does not take 25 seconds.

Plus, the car that Couch was in, along with Dillard and Jackson, was traveling approximately 15mph and if 60 ft to go to turn on Elm st as Couch said, since 15mph = 20 ft/sec approx, it would of only been about 3  seconds later, maybe 5 seconds tops, when the car has turned on Elm.

And how does it take Baker 24 seconds to travel 80 ft if he has increased speed up to 30 mph to get to the Elm st curb where he parks his bike. that would have only taken another 3 to 5 seconds also. What did Baker do upon stopping his bike? Sit on it for another 20 seconds or more? Had not Baker already made up his mind that the shots came from the roof of the TSBD when he saw the pigeons fly, and that was the REASON to have reved up the bike and accellerate to TSBD ASAP?? So why would Baker sit on his motorycle for another 20 seconds?

This is why I think the Couch film actually was started as early as 6 sec post Malcolm Couch seeing the rifle withdrawn, and starts just WHEN the car reaches and turns on Elm st, which would have only taken 3 to 5 seconds to travel that 60 ft distance at 15mph.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on March 11, 2019, 09:30:20 AM
Yeah, but since Oswald shot Kennedy, what is all this argle-bargle for?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 11, 2019, 09:48:24 AM
Yeah, but since Oswald shot Kennedy, what is all this argle-bargle for?

Dear Mark,

Wow, believing in Prayer Woman is concomitant to believing that Lee Harvey Oswald dood da deed, an' all by him widdle self?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 11, 2019, 10:11:00 AM
Yeah, but since Oswald shot Kennedy, what is all this argle-bargle for?

Because it makes his feat of marksmanship all the more remarkable!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 12, 2019, 03:15:41 AM
"I recall that at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Texas School Book Depository employees Mrs. Bonnie Richie, Mrs. Carolyn Arnold and Mrs. Jeraldean Reid were standing at my elbow and likewise witnessed the assassination."
 -- Ochus V. Campbell, in his 3/19/64 FBI statement

"At the time President John F. Kennedy was shot I was standing with Mr. [Ochus V.] Campbell in the street just in front of the building entrance."
-- Roy S. Truly, in his 3/19/64 FBI statement
.......

Iacoletti,

Have you been able to find Truly and Campbell in the Wiegman clip?

Jeraldean Reid (and Bonnie Richie and Carolyn Arnold) should be seen standing near them, if you can.

Why? Wiegman wasn?t taken at the time of the assassination.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 12, 2019, 04:27:02 AM
Why? Wiegman wasn?t taken at the time of the assassination.

Yes, it was, John.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Motorcade_Films.html

Why do you think Wiegman jumped out of that camera car while filming?

LOL

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on March 12, 2019, 07:31:02 AM
Because it makes his feat of marksmanship all the more remarkable!  Thumb1:

It was Ozzie's lucky day, sir.  Even a stopped watch is right twice in twenty-four.......

Not our lucky day, though........ we're still hearing the 'white noise' from the depths of conspiracy (read: universe)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 12, 2019, 10:07:59 AM
It was Ozzie's lucky day, sir.  Even a stopped watch is right twice in twenty-four.......

Not our lucky day, though........ we're still hearing the 'white noise' from the depths of conspiracy (read: universe)

(~Shrug~)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Dale Nason on March 13, 2019, 01:13:41 AM
Okay. This post is over 350 pages long. I say it's had it's time. Done, over with and then some. Time to move on with something new. For the love of God!!!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 13, 2019, 01:34:11 AM
Okay. This post is over 350 pages long. I say it's had it's time. Done, over with and then some. Time to move on with something new. For the love of God!!!

Dear Dale,

If you don't like it, then why don't you just go somewhere else?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 13, 2019, 08:11:24 AM
Okay. This post is over 350 pages long. I say it's had it's time. Done, over with and then some. Time to move on with something new. For the love of God!!!

Well said! The evidence that Mr Oswald was standing in the front entranceway at the time of the assassination, just like he said, should detain us no further! Who cares where Mr Oswald was at the time of the assassination? It's not going to bring JFK back!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 14, 2019, 02:59:18 AM
This post is over 350 pages long. I say it's had it's time. Done, over with. Time to move on with something new. 
Like space conquest? I mentioned that 80 pages ago.    (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 14, 2019, 03:07:06 AM
I might note that you can adjust your Look and Layout setting...giving you 50 posts per page thus making this thread [as of now] only 71 pages long ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 14, 2019, 09:16:40 AM
Like space conquest? I mentioned that 80 pages ago.    (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)

It would seem that many people stubbornly insist on remaining interested in the evidence that
--------------Mr Oswald claimed to have gone out front to watch the Presidential parade
--------------Mr Oswald in actual fact had in fact gone out front to watch the Presidential parade.

The thesis that Prayer Man is Mr Oswald is stronger than ever. The unearthing on February 19 of Agent Hosty's buried interrogation notes was a landmark moment-------it annihilated the argument that Mr Oswald on the front steps could never be anything more than a bizarre, fringe theory!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 14, 2019, 01:23:57 PM
It would seem that many people stubbornly insist on remaining interested in the evidence that
--------------Mr Oswald claimed to have gone out front to watch the Presidential parade
--------------Mr Oswald in actual fact had in fact gone out front to watch the Presidential parade.

The thesis that Prayer Man is Mr Oswald is stronger than ever. The unearthing on February 19 of Agent Hosty's buried interrogation notes was a landmark moment-------it annihilated the argument that Mr Oswald on the front steps could never be anything more than a bizarre, fringe theory!

 Thumb1:

Mr Oswald claimed to have gone out front to watch the Presidential parade
Mr Oswald in actual fact had in fact gone out front to watch the Presidential parade.


No, Mr Oswald DID NOT go out front to watch the Presidential Parade..... Mr Oswald told the interrogators that he was "drinking a coke" in the second floor lunchroom when DPD officer Baker, and his supervisor Roy Truly , came into that lunchroom.    And both Truly and Baker verified that they had seen Lee Oswald in that lunchroom at about 12:32 pm.

At that time the Presidential parade was gone....so there's no way Lee could have gone outside to watch the parade. You're attempting to use Bookhout's error in his scribbled notes as though it is a fact....  It's been pointed out that Bookhout corrected his error when typed up the report.

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on March 14, 2019, 02:15:35 PM
Like space conquest? I mentioned that 80 pages ago.    (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)

Hey, don't forget the other thread Duncan deleted.  Oh, the Glory Days !!!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 14, 2019, 02:39:40 PM
Hey, don't forget the other thread Duncan deleted.  Oh, the Glory Days !!!

What are you referring to?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 15, 2019, 12:01:25 AM
None of them saw or even claimed to see Oswald anywhere at the time the shots were fired, so your point is invalid.  And neither Sarah nor her relatives said anything about the second floor.  You just made that one up.

Highly dishonest.

Fritz Report: "I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor."

Bookhout/Hosty Report:  "Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building."

Fritz's testimony:
Mr. BALL. With reference to where he was at the time the President was shot, did he tell you what floor of the building he was on?
Mr. FRITZ. I feel sure that he told me he was on the second floor.
Mr. BALL. Look at 136B.
Mr. FRITZ. All right, sir.
Mr. BALL. The second paragraph down, 136B.
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; second floor; yes, sir. He said he usually worked on the first floor. I asked him what part of the building at the time the President was shot. He said he was having lunch at about this time on the first floor.

Hosty's book, "Assignment: Oswald":

"Where were you when the president went by the book depository?"
"I was eating my lunch in the first floor lunchroom."

So much for your "more credible evidence".   :D

I believe that Fritz was lying.... He never asked Lee where he was at the time the President was shot.   I do believe that Fritz asked Lee where he was at the time the parade passed the building.    And you might argue that it's the same thing because the President was shot at the time the Parade passed the building, but one question implies hat Lee heard the shots and the other makes no mention of the shots.   In the Bookhout / Hosty report for 11/22/63 Bookhout / Hosty wrote"..."Oswald claimed to be ON THE FIRST FLOOR when President Kennedy passed this building."
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 15, 2019, 05:32:36 PM
None of them saw or even claimed to see Oswald anywhere at the time the shots were fired, so your point is invalid.  And neither Sarah nor her relatives said anything about the second floor.  You just made that one up.

Highly dishonest.

Fritz Report: "I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor."

Bookhout/Hosty Report:  "Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building."

Fritz's testimony:
Mr. BALL. With reference to where he was at the time the President was shot, did he tell you what floor of the building he was on?
Mr. FRITZ. I feel sure that he told me he was on the second floor.
Mr. BALL. Look at 136B.
Mr. FRITZ. All right, sir.
Mr. BALL. The second paragraph down, 136B.
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; second floor; yes, sir. He said he usually worked on the first floor. I asked him what part of the building at the time the President was shot. He said he was having lunch at about this time on the first floor.

Hosty's book, "Assignment: Oswald":

"Where were you when the president went by the book depository?"
"I was eating my lunch in the first floor lunchroom."

So much for your "more credible evidence".   :D
Mr Iacoletti wrote:

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; second floor; yes, sir. He said he usually worked on the first floor. I asked him what part of the building at the time the President was shot. He said he was having lunch at about this time on the first floor.

Hosty's book, "Assignment: Oswald":

"Where were you when the president went by the book depository?"
"I was eating my lunch in the first floor lunchroom."


Congratulations Mr Iacoletti...You're starting to learn the tune....  You're now repeating the tune I taught you a couple of years ago....

I'm sure that you recall that you accused me of lying ( or words to that effect) when I told you that Lee was in the first floor lunchroom at the time JFK passed by the TSBD 

Nice to see that you've learned a little bit.....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 15, 2019, 08:10:19 PM
When did Baker say that he saw Oswald standing stationary in the lunch room door window?

Sidebar! When Agent Howlett recreated Mr Oswald's alleged descent from the 6th to the 2nd fl, he concluded the reenactment by seating himself at one of the tables:

(https://i.imgur.com/GTOv5u6.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Royell Storing on March 15, 2019, 09:03:30 PM
Sidebar! When Agent Howlett recreated Mr Oswald's alleged descent from the 6th to the 2nd fl, he concluded the reenactment by seating himself at one of the tables:

(https://i.imgur.com/GTOv5u6.jpg)

     You check that Entire re-creation out and they used 2 Different G-Men in that joke of a video. Makes me believe something was edited in-and-out.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2019, 05:25:01 AM
I'm sure that you recall that you accused me of lying ( or words to that effect) when I told you that Lee was in the first floor lunchroom at the time JFK passed by the TSBD 

I remember it well. It was the first and only time you?ve ever actually produced a citation for one of your stories. Well done. Of course Hosty didn?t make this claim in his reports or anywhere else...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 16, 2019, 03:04:14 PM
I remember it well. It was the first and only time you?ve ever actually produced a citation for one of your stories. Well done. Of course Hosty didn?t make this claim in his reports or anywhere else...

It was the first and only time you?ve ever actually produced a citation for one of your stories.

The only time that you can remember....  which only demonstrates that your memory is short also....

Thank you...You've acknowledged that simply because I don't oblige the whims of those who are less educated, does not give you a valid reason to say that I'm lying. 

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2019, 03:54:49 PM
Thank you...You've acknowledged that simply because I don't oblige the whims of those who are less educated, does not give you a valid reason to say that I'm lying.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 16, 2019, 04:46:57 PM
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
True...But most folks don't demand that the clock be taken apart just to validate that it is working.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Dale Nason on March 19, 2019, 12:00:12 AM
Jesus F'en  Christ! I and a lot of others have had enough of " Prayer Woman".  JUST MOVE ON!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 19, 2019, 12:12:37 AM
Jesus F'en  Christ! I and a lot of others have had enough of " Prayer Woman".  JUST MOVE ON!

Go away, then, and join J-a-m-e-s "Jumbo Duh" D-i-E-u-g-e-n-i-o at the JFK Assassination Mutual Masterbation Society, for Jesus xxxxxxx Christ!

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 19, 2019, 12:20:21 AM
Jesus F'en  Christ! I and a lot of others have had enough of " Prayer Woman".  JUST MOVE ON!

Oh, but those who understand the evidence have long since moved on from 'Prayer Woman', which was never anything more than an absurd, hopeless, bad-faith attempt to explain away the Prayer Man figure standing in the doorway.

The 'Prayer Man' theory, by contrast, is in the rudest of rude good health. It remains the only show in town.

Mr Oswald claimed to have been out front for the Presidential parade---------

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

----------and no even remotely credible candidate for Prayer Man other than Mr Oswald has been put forward.

We are very lucky indeed that Mr Oswald was captured on film by Messrs Hughes, Wiegman and Darnell, for it enables us to confirm his own claim to have been out front.

98% of the noise on this thread has been produced by a sad-sack fanatic who is in day-in-day-out denial about these simple facts. No one takes him seriously anymore, and he's easily ignored!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 19, 2019, 12:37:15 AM
Dear Brian,

If, in Couch-Darnell, Gloria Calvery is talking with Joe Molina while Shelley and Lovelady are bookin' it down Elm Street Extension, then who is the guy wearing the suit, tie & hat next to Wesley Buell Frazier?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

Hello Mr Graves!  Thumb1:

How on earth do you know this is
a) a guy
b) a guy wearing a suit
c) a guy wearing a suit and tie
d) a guy wearing a suit and tie and hat?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 19, 2019, 02:56:23 AM
Hello Mr Graves!  Thumb1:

How on earth do you know this is
a) a guy
b) a guy wearing a suit
c) a guy wearing a suit and tie
d) a guy wearing a suit and tie and hat?

LOL

Nice Iacoletti imitation!

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

PS  You must be looking at a different person.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 19, 2019, 05:01:37 AM
LOL

Nice Iacoletti imitation!

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

PS  You must be looking at a different person.

Yeah, how unreasonable to expect someone to give evidence for his claims.

 ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 19, 2019, 10:58:06 AM
LOL

Nice Iacoletti imitation!

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

PS  You must be looking at a different person.

Okay then, show us his tie!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on March 19, 2019, 08:14:37 PM
Try answering the question.  Who's "we"?

It's the royal 'we', John....... think Queen Victoria, but at least she took a bath once in a while........ uh.......
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on March 19, 2019, 08:30:55 PM
It's the royal 'we', John....... think Queen Victoria, but at least she took a bath once in a while........ uh.......

Don yours yet, Al? errr....."We" yours yet, Don?

Quote from: Lorelei, (She was his (Mr. Earl's) only girl)
...wearing the yellow vests that, under a 2008 French law, all motorists are required to keep in their vehicles and to wear in case of emergency.[66 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement#cite_note-NPR181203-66)] ...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 19, 2019, 10:36:35 PM
And by the way, whether Larsen did or did not post what you said wouldn't make it the truth anyway.  Let's see anything from anyone that shows "exact forensic matching of plaid bars".  Not here's this "enhanced" photo that you think shows a criss-cross looking pattern.  An exact forensic match would require measurements of some kind, right?  When you're not outright lying, you're overstating what is just a subjective opinion.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 20, 2019, 09:49:32 AM
Why hello, Mr Lovelady!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/DE6gafg.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/BE5Q5bO.jpg)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on March 20, 2019, 11:10:44 AM
Why hello, Mr Lovelady!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/DE6gafg.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/BE5Q5bO.jpg)

Gosh, Albert...... why don't you get a new computer that is able to post images instead of your usual droning verbiage.  Do you realize how many words you've shared with the public?  How about some images to back up your claims that it wasn't a dude taking pictures with a camera?  I say it was someone off the street to get a better exposure of the prez' goin' by, but what do I know?  The last thing folks in the TSBD 'doorway' were concerned about was who was standing next to whom!!  Good Lord, Oswald was shooting at the president, people could hear the shots and the echoes that came with it....... it was a matter of one or two minutes before they realized what had just occurred.  Perhaps this 'mystery man' and his photos/movie(?) shall surface one day.  I suggest paying for an advert in the Dallas newspapers this November, with a thousand-dollar reward for coming forward.  There were more pictures taken at that moment, this we know.  Some were confiscated (ooooooh....... ooooh..... conspiracy!!!), but that's the DPD & SS scurrying to cover the shame of themselves for 'doing a Tsarnaev', i.e., dropping the ball on keeping an eye on possible terrorists.  And never forget..........  Lee Harvey Oswald....... was a TERRORIST !!!  Just like that ...... in Christchurch.  There.  I've said my peace.  And I leave it all up to you (as Michael Pinder from The Moody Blues said)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 21, 2019, 01:29:14 AM
It's just the truth.  You think you're entitled to lie with impunity?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 21, 2019, 06:14:08 PM
Another long-winded and unhinged delusional rant that basically amounts to "my opinion is right because I say so".

You've made your point (such as it is).  Why do you feel the need to keep repeating it over and over again.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Logan on March 21, 2019, 06:28:01 PM
Captain Queeg and his never-ending strawberries saga.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on March 21, 2019, 07:56:29 PM
To Your credit, You damn us all with faint praise. I feel your pain....if I convinced myself the sun shined out of my butt,
I imagine I'd be preoccupied with whether I had any right to wear boxers, briefs, or pants, blocking others' view of the sun's brilliance.

Indeed
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 21, 2019, 08:20:19 PM
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/lovelady_on_elm_ext_comparison.jpg)

'Shelley' is in fact Mr Arce, and there's 'plaid' all over that film!

(https://i.imgur.com/TmcsraW.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 22, 2019, 12:12:38 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Rxz8iND.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 22, 2019, 12:39:02 AM
Looks like 'Mr Lovelady' isn't even white!

(https://i.imgur.com/DK0Lzto.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/lSevEcm.gif)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 25, 2019, 09:16:22 PM
Friends! People following this thread could be forgiven for missing the fact that last month saw the revelation of one of the single most important documents to be released since the publication of the Warren Report: Agent Hosty's handwritten write-up of the first interrogation of Mr Oswald on 11/22/63---------

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

For the first time ever, we the public have Mr Oswald's side of the story:
-----------I bought a coke on the 2nd floor before the motorcade
-----------I brought this coke down to the 1st floor to eat lunch
-----------I then went outside to watch the Presidential parade.


Now! There would be nothing at all complicated or difficult about Mr Oswald's having done these things. His claims do not require us to suspend belief in the laws of physics, chemistry or time!

The only difficulty caused by Mr Oswald's claims is that they run counter to the ridiculous official story and all the distortion and suppression that went into keeping it alive. (This of course is why his claims remained cruelly suppressed between 22 November 1963 and 19 February 2019.) They also run counter to various kooky CT counter-theories of Mr Oswald's movements at the critical time.

Mr Oswald was tricked into bringing curtain rods into work that morning. After that, he was left free to wander out front to catch the parade. He had no idea of the nightmare that was about to descend---------though the evidence suggests that he put 2 and 2 together very quickly after realising that shots had been fired at JFK.

Mr Oswald was indeed a patsy, but not as a shooter. He was set up as 'the guy who brought a rifle into the building'. His Soviet/Castro background took care of the rest.

We are all still in the deeply unsatisfactory position of not knowing who shot President Kennedy. All we know is that it wasn't Mr Oswald, for he is still the only candidate for Prayer Man.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2019, 11:25:28 PM
Which suggests that Westbrook made it back to the TSBD and inside said building before it was locked down, and therefore couldn't have been the light-blue-headscarf-wearing gal "captured," in glorious color, while in the company of sef-described Native American Stella Mae Jacob and strawberry-blond Gloria Jeanne Holt in Zapruder and Bronson-5 during the motorcade, and in the Tina Towner film several minutes after the assassination.

Bummer, huh, Iacoletti and Kamp?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

When exactly do you think the TSBD was locked down?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 27, 2019, 01:33:31 AM
When exactly do you think the TSBD was locked down?

Plus or minus how many milliseconds, Iacoletti?

.....

When exactly do you think Jimmy Darnell filmed those three gals stepping off of The Pergola's patio, as we can see him starting to do in the Tina Towner clip?

Before he'd filmed Craig and Walther, et al., in the Railway yard / Parking lot, or after

How many minutes before or after he'd finished filming there (in the railway yard / parking lot)?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2019, 02:39:06 AM
Plus or minus how many milliseconds, Iacoletti?

I can always tell when you have no answer. You try to divert with sarcasm. When do you think the Towner sequence was filmed and when do you think the building was ?sealed off??

Quote
When exactly do you think Jimmy Darnell filmed those three gals stepping off of The Pergola's patio, as we can see him starting to do in the Tina Towner clip?

I have no idea. What makes you think Darnell?s ?gals? are stepping off the pergola patio at all? And are you also claiming you can identify Darnell in the Towner clip? Based on what (other than a circular argument).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 27, 2019, 04:05:56 AM
I can always tell when you have no answer. You try to divert with sarcasm. When do you think the Towner sequence was filmed and when do you think the building was ?sealed off??

I have no idea. What makes you think Darnell?s ?gals? are stepping off the pergola patio at all? And are you also claiming you can identify Darnell in the Towner clip? Based on what (other than a circular argument).

Iacoletti,

Better minds that mine were speculating last year on this forum that that's Darnell in the Towner film, and that he was running towards the three "Darnell Women" on the pergola patio because he wanted to photograph them.

Maybe he heard Gloria Jeanne Holt crying in that three-woman group, and thought she'd be a dramatic subject?

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1303.0.html

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2019, 04:31:03 AM
Better minds that mine were speculating last year on this forum that that's Darnell in the Towner film, and that he was running towards the three "Darnell Women" on the pergola patio because he wanted to photograph them.

The operative word here is ?speculating?.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 27, 2019, 09:42:02 AM
The operative word here is ?speculating?.

Iacoletti,

Do you disagree with Unger's and Macrae's and Hackerott's "speculations"/conclusions ...

on the first page of this thread: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1303.0.html

... that Tina Towner's film captured James Darnell, lugging his over-the-shoulder camera bag as he ran towards the three gals on The Pergola Patio, after he had finished filming in the Parking Lot and then Marilyn Sitzman's being questioned by a FBI agent near "The Zapruder Pedestal"?

Josiah Thompson interviewed Sitzman in 1966:

Thompson: And then you watched the ... then after the head shot, the car disappeared under the underpass?

Sitzman: Uh huh. And I got off the concrete slab we were standing on, and I ran down the hill, and I met some men from across the street, and I took it for granted that they were Secret Service or CIA or something like that; and they asked me what happened, and I said, "they killed him." And I walked back up the hill, and I talked to an FBI man up there that did identify himself to me, but I don't recall his name, and then I walked back behind the marble thing there, not behind it, but back inside.


https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=1555&fullsize=1

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2019, 03:48:50 PM
Do you disagree with Unger's and Macrae's and Hackerott's "speculations"/conclusions ...

on the first page of this thread: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1303.0.html

... that Tina Towner's film captured James Darnell, lugging his over-the-shoulder camera bag as he ran towards the three gals on The Pergola Patio, after he had finished filming in the Parking Lot and then Marilyn Sitzman's being questioned by a FBI agent near "The Zapruder Pedestal"?

All Unger said was, "I also see what may be the three Darnell women".

I don't know how you could possibly know that this running person is Darnell or that he took his footage at this particular time and place.  If you want to guess that it is then be my guest.  But at least admit that it's a guess.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 28, 2019, 03:35:15 AM
Has it been settled yet what may be the reason, if prayer person is Oswald, why he is about 9" lower than the 6'1" Buell W. Frazier?

Has anyone actually gone to Dealey Plaza, set up the same type camera and same location and get some 5'9" person to stand in some way to replicate pray persons image, so we do not have to rely on John Myttons computer perspective as the end all discussion conclusion?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 28, 2019, 03:38:07 AM
Has it been settled yet what may be the reason, if prayer person is Oswald, why he is about 9" lower than the 6'1" Buell W. Frazier?

Has anyone actually gone to Dealey Plaza, set up the same type camera and same location and get some 5'9" person to stand in some way to replicate pray persons image, so we do not have to rely on John Myttons computer perspective as the end all discussion conclusion?

The steps are different now.

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on March 28, 2019, 11:55:54 AM
Has it been settled yet what may be the reason, if prayer person is Oswald, why he is about 9" lower than the 6'1" Buell W. Frazier?

Has anyone actually gone to Dealey Plaza, set up the same type camera and same location and get some 5'9" person to stand in some way to replicate pray persons image, so we do not have to rely on John Myttons computer perspective as the end all discussion conclusion?

Mr Mytton's computer mockup is a disaster, Mr Mason--------Prayer Man's arms are waaaaaaay too far from the front vertical column of the entranceway!

Prayer Man is a lot lower than Mr Frazier because at least one of his feet is one step down.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on March 29, 2019, 06:28:33 PM
Iacoletti,

Better minds that mine were speculating last year on this forum that that's Darnell in the Towner film, and that he was running towards the three "Darnell Women" on the pergola patio because he wanted to photograph them.

Maybe he heard Gloria Jeanne Holt crying in that three-woman group, and thought she'd be a dramatic subject?

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1303.0.html

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

That's it, v, v nice spot.
Darnell had a newspaper in his jacket pocket and it's seen in at least one image of him in CC3 or the RRY.

From Duncan's post in that thread.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/towmer4.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 30, 2019, 02:48:22 AM
That's it, v, v nice spot.
Darnell had a newspaper in his jacket pocket and it's seen in at least one image of him in CC3 or the RRY.

From Duncan's post in that thread.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/towmer4.gif)

Thanks, Barry.

I didn't know about the newspaper.

What does CC3 and RRY stand for?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on March 30, 2019, 06:20:56 PM
Minutes before on Main, JD on left, "newspaper" in same pocket as Towner.
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/jackson-bob-on-main.jpg)

CC = "Camera Car"(from Trask I think), RRY is The Railroad Yards
I thought they were universally understood sorry.

So as it stands, Holt is still extremely upset, around ten minutes after the attack, so either she learnt of something during those 10mins or she's still suffering from what we see @Z313?
She may have overheard Sitzman just for example, or a little of both.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2019, 08:23:56 PM
It takes more to prove something than just repeating that you have proven it over and over again, ad nauseum. Especially when you blatantly lie about everything.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on March 31, 2019, 08:21:29 PM
Minutes before on Main, JD on left, "newspaper" in same pocket as Towner.
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/jackson-bob-on-main.jpg)

CC = "Camera Car"(from Trask I think), RRY is The Railroad Yards
I thought they were universally understood sorry.

So as it stands, Holt is still extremely upset, around ten minutes after the attack, so either she learnt of something during those 10mins or she's still suffering from what we see @Z313?
She may have overheard Sitzman just for example, or a little of both.

Barry,

Thanks for that.

Good stuff.

Tangential question: Do we know the kind of 16 mm (?) movie camera Darnell was using that day, and the lens he would have shot the three gals on the Pergola Patio with?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 01, 2019, 09:21:40 AM
Barry,

Thanks for that.

Good stuff.

Tangential question: Do we know the kind of 16 mm (?) movie camera Darnell was using that day, and the lens he would have shot the three gals on the Pergola Patio with?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

Cheers Tommy, I could look it up if I still had Trask's mini door stopper but I gave it to a newbie, gratis of course.  Pictures of the Pain has some real goodies on the camera car's occupants. IIRC though, Darnell's contribution was a little light as indeed was his recognition for what he did/captured.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 01, 2019, 10:34:19 PM
You have no evidence that there was a ?Calvery group? standing together as a foursome. It doesn?t become a ?fact? just because you keep claiming it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 02, 2019, 02:28:15 AM
Based on Buell's 2002 statement re Oswald/Elm St, you cannot lay claim to Oswald actually 'walking up' Elm at that particular moment. He was just starting to cross Elm according to Buell.

However, CTers can't claim the high ground here either. Buell simply didn't watch Oswald's further progress.

So you have no difficulty accepting that Mr Frazier kept a potentially very significant piece of information to himself for several decades before finally revealing it? And---following on from this---that official statements and testimony do not necessarily tell the full story of what happened that day?

Good to know!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 02, 2019, 05:43:42 AM
So you have no difficulty accepting that Mr Frazier kept a potentially very significant piece of information to himself for several decades before finally revealing it? And---following on from this---that official statements and testimony do not necessarily tell the full story of what happened that day?

Good to know!  Thumb1:

I said nothing about whether I believe Buell or not.

Try to comprehend what I addressed instead of doing the same tired, old, predictable JAQer/CTer Conclusion-Jump Polka
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 02, 2019, 10:26:21 AM
You have no evidence that there was a ?Calvery group? standing together as a foursome. It doesn?t become a ?fact? just because you keep claiming it.

John "I Absolutely Refuse To 'Get' It" Iacoletti,

The FBI statements of Calvery, Hicks, Reed and Westbrook indicate that the four South West Publishing Company colleagues walked from the TSBD to a point on the north side of Elm Street "about halfway between Houston Street and the Triple Underpass" and watched the motorcade together.

D'oh

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Logan on April 02, 2019, 06:36:25 PM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 02, 2019, 08:56:12 PM
John "I Absolutely Refuse To 'Get' It" Iacoletti,

The FBI statements of Calvery, Hicks, Reed and Westbrook indicate that the four South West Publishing Company colleagues walked from the TSBD to a point on the north side of Elm Street "about halfway between Houston Street and the Triple Underpass" and watched the motorcade together.

D'oh

How does that mean that the four of them were all standing side-by-side?

It doesn't.  You're just assuming that they did.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 02, 2019, 09:01:53 PM
Quote
The guy on the TSBD's lower steps who is talking with Iacoletti's "Glasses Woman" looks like Billy Lovelady to me.

I don't have a "glasses woman", but even if I did, there's no reason to think that black-blob in Darnell is her.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 02, 2019, 09:07:42 PM
I don't have a "glasses woman", but even if I did, there's no reason to think that black-blob in Darnell is her.

Iacoletti,

You don't remember referring to the gal wearing the "black blouse" and the "black" headscarf next to John Templin in Betzner-3 as "Glasses Woman" (even though they are hard to spot unless you enlarge the heck out of her face) because you didn't want to acknowledge that she is wearing that "black blouse" and "black" headscarf?

Really?

Or are you lying?

(Gasp ... did you go back and delete it?)

--  Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 02, 2019, 09:28:32 PM
You don't remember referring to the gal wearing the "black blouse" and the "black" headscarf next to John Templin in Betzner-3 as "Glasses Woman" (even though they are hard to spot unless you enlarge the heck out of her face) because you didn't want to acknowledge that she is wearing that "black blouse" and "black" headscarf?

I've explained this multiple times.  Did you forget, or are you lying?

After enlarging the figure, I realized that there may or may not be glasses.  If you think there are then you should outline where you think they are.

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/betzner-blob.png)

Regardless, please stop referring to her as "Iacoletti's glasses woman".  That's deceptive.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on April 03, 2019, 06:03:31 PM
PrayerWhatever was a dude taking pictures with a camera.  Ever heard that one?  My hypothesis is just as valid as yours, Albert.  I see what I see, and it ain't no dame.  So there.  Go take a bath.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 04, 2019, 05:48:47 PM
Le Doux is quite correct. A "vestibule" is a small room at the entrance of a building to protect the innards from the weather, (note the same as described for your camping tent, Brian.)
A small room leading to a larger room (as on the second floor of the TSBD) is an "ante room".

Just for you, Brian, (sorry, Dougal.)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 04, 2019, 06:32:35 PM
Le Doux is quite correct. A "vestibule" is a small room at the entrance of a building to protect the innards from the weather, (note the same as described for your camping tent, Brian.)
A small room leading to a larger room (as on the second floor of the TSBD) is an "ante room".

Just for you, Brian, (sorry, Dougal.)

It shows, Mr Mitcham, the utterly pitiable state of Anti-Prayer-Man research that the Anybody-But-Oswald zealots' case rests on
---------------murdering normal dictionary definitions of words!
---------------arguing that Prayer Man is a white-haired woman!
---------------arguing that left is right!
---------------interpreting 'Then went outside to watch P. parade' as meaning something other than 'Then went outside to watch Presidential parade'!

These people recall the glory days of Mr Cinque!  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 04, 2019, 08:54:02 PM
If you don't understand basic photography concepts, then it really doesn't matter what photo you are "interpreting".

Quote
and you still haven't answer the correct point that Calvery has her knees bent and Hicks has her legs straight..In Zapruder it is the opposite and Hicks has hers bent and Calvery has hers straight...

 BS:

You can't even see Calvery's knees in the office photo.  Not can you see "tall woman"'s knees in Zapruder.  You're just making stuff up again to try to prop up a failing argument.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 05, 2019, 02:35:16 AM
Please supply the link to a dictionary which says an ante room is attached to the main entrance. Or STFU.
Dictionary description of "ante room".
Cambridge Dictionary.
anteroom
noun [ C ] UK ​  /ˈ?n.ti.ruːm/ /ˈ?n.ti.rʊm/ US ​  /ˈ?n.t̬i.ruːm/ /ˈ?n.t̬i.rʊm/ also antechamber formal

a small room, especially a waiting room, that leads into a larger, more important room:

Websters Dictionary

anteroom noun
an?​te?​room | \ ˈan-ti-ˌr?m  , -ˌru̇m\
Definition of anteroom
: a small outer room that leads to another room and that is often used as a waiting room


Note NOT a vestibule

You made the claim. Back it up. Show the links. if you can, otherwise as i said above. STFU.

Ray,

What leads you to believe that the person who used the word "vestibule" knew the dictionary definition of that word?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 05, 2019, 09:50:17 AM
Ray,

What leads you to believe that the person who used the word "vestibule" knew the dictionary definition of that word?

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

What leads  you to believe he didn't?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 05, 2019, 11:13:49 AM
What leads  you to believe he didn't?

Ray,

That's your answer?

LOL

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

PS  FWIW, back in 1966, only 2% of the millions of other high school juniors who wanted to go to college and who took the same test I did did better than I on the "Verbal Intelligence" part of the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

Point being: I'm pretty good with words.

When I first heard the word "vestibule" in the context of Oswald's alleged whereabouts about one minute after the assassination, I automatically assumed it referred to the smallish, oddly-shaped, enclosed "transit space" adjoining the second floor lunchroom.

But I was wrong, I guess, huh?

Regardless, I admit to being thrown for a bit of a loop by Holmes' testimony:

Mr. Belin: By the way, where did this policeman stop him [Oswald] when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
Mr. Holmes: He said it was in the vestibule.
Mr. Belin: He said he was in the vestibule?
Mr. Holmes: Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.
Mr. Belin: Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. Holmes: First Floor. The front entrance to the first floor.
.......

Was Oswald really at "the front entrance to the 'vestibule' on the first floor"?

If that was the case, then why not keep it simple and say he was in the lobby near the front entrance?

Are we to understand that before the assassination, Postal Inspector Holmes had never been inside the TSBD?

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 05, 2019, 12:29:18 PM
Ray,

That's your answer?

LOL

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

PS  FWIW, back in 1966, only 2% of the millions of other high school juniors who wanted to go to college and who took the same test I did did better than I on the "Verbal Intelligence" part of the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

Point being: I'm pretty good with words.

When I first heard the word "vestibule" in the context of Oswald's alleged whereabouts about one minute after the assassination, I automatically assumed it referred to the smallish, oddly-shaped, enclosed "transit space" adjoining the second floor lunchroom.

But I was wrong, I guess, huh?

Guess so.

Quote

Regardless, I admit to being thrown for a bit of a loop by Holmes' testimony:

Mr. Belin: By the way, where did this policeman stop him [Oswald] when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
Mr. Holmes: He said it was in the vestibule.
Mr. Belin: He said he was in the vestibule?
Mr. Holmes: Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.
Mr. Belin: Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. Holmes: First Floor. The front entrance to the first floor.

The front entrance to the "vestibule" on the first floor?

Was Oswald at "the front entrance to the vestibule on the TSBD's first floor"?

If that was the case, then why not keep it simple and say he was in the lobby near the front entrance?

Indeed but he said "vestibule", so we must assume he knew what the word meant.
Quote
Are we to understand that before the assassination, Postal Inspector Holmes had never been inside the TSBD?

Your guess is a good as anybody else.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 05, 2019, 12:38:21 PM
Guess so.

Indeed but he said "vestibule", so we must assume he knew what the word meant.
Your guess is a good as anybody else.

Ray,

It's more likely that that world famous intellectual Rodney Dangerfield I mean Marion Baker used that word, and Holmes was simply "quoting" him.

-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 06, 2019, 01:43:34 AM
When I first heard the word "vestibule" in the context of Oswald's alleged whereabouts about one minute after the assassination, I automatically assumed it referred to the smallish, oddly-shaped, enclosed "transit space" adjoining the second floor lunchroom.

But I was wrong, I guess, huh?

"We saw him in a small storage room on the ground floor".

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/NYHT-Nov-22-1963.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 06, 2019, 03:31:59 PM
"We saw him in a small storage room on the ground floor".

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/NYHT-Nov-22-1963.jpg)

The vestibule:

(https://i.imgur.com/hPy0KEV.jpg)

Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz
-----------he visited the 2nd fl lunchroom before the parade
-----------he went outside to watch the parade
-----------he had an exchange with a police officer in the vestibule (front entrance, first floor) just after the shooting

Mr Ochus Campbell told reporters 11/22
-----------Mr Oswald was spotted in a small storage room on the ground floor shortly after the shooting
(Note: There is a small storage room just off the..... vestibule.)

DPD told reporters 11/22
-----------Mr Oswald had an exchange with a police officer at the front entrance just after the shooting.

The details of what really happened may still be a little hazy, but one thing is clear:

All the action was at the front entrance, first floor.

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 06, 2019, 07:37:33 PM
Correct.

From 09:20 on in her Sixth Floor Museum interview, Mary Woodward identifies the group of female fellow-journalists she was standing with as (from left to right in Zapruder): Aurellia Alonzo, Herself (blond-haired and "wearing a light grey wool dress"), Ann Donaldson Atterberry, and Margaret "Maggie" Brown Kennedy (whom we now know was standing to the immediate left of Karen Westbrook and the three other members of the headscarf-wearing "Calvery Group").


--  Mudd Wrassler Tommy  :)

- Edited and bumped for John (whom I see is "lurking")

MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 06, 2019, 09:00:19 PM
From 09:20 on in her Sixth Floor Museum interview, Mary Woodward identifies the group of female fellow-journalists she was standing with as (from left to right in Zapruder): Aurellia Alonzo, Herself (blond-haired and "wearing a light grey wool suit"), Ann Donaldson Atterberry, and Margaret "Maggie" Brown Kennedy (whom we now know was standing to the immediate left of Karen Westbrook and other three members of the headscarf-wearing "Calvery Group").

So you just accept Mary Woodward?s identifications (50 years later and from behind), but not Karen Westbrook?s. Nice special pleading.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on April 06, 2019, 10:02:39 PM
"We saw him in a small storage room on the ground floor".

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/NYHT-Nov-22-1963.jpg)

This article is being presented as evidence? Has it been thoroughly read? Officer MacDonald's partner was JD Tippet? JD Tippet was shot in the Texas Theater? Then Officer MacDonald 'subdued LeeHarveyOswald and was slashed several times across his face with the butt of a gun'? LeeHarveyOswald was 'thin and balding when found in the Theater crouched near a red-lighted exit door? But, he was photographed in Moscow on 11/14/'59, in a Hotel Room with a crew-cut'? The TSBD Bldg was located at Elm St and Main St?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 06, 2019, 10:07:58 PM
This article is being presented as evidence? Has it been thoroughly read? Officer MacDonald's partner was JD Tippet? JD Tippet was shot in the Texas Theater? Then Officer MacDonald 'subdued LeeHarveyOswald and was slashed several times across his face with the butt of a gun'? LeeHarveyOswald was 'thin and balding when found in the Theater crouched near a red-lighted exit door? But, he was photographed in Moscow on 11/14/'59, in a Hotel Room with a crew-cut'? The TSBD Bldg was located at Elm St and Main St?

Those other factual errors don't matter and can be ignored. Apparently.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 06, 2019, 10:21:12 PM
This article is being presented as evidence? Has it been thoroughly read?

Provide even a single 11/22 source that has Oswald encountered by Baker on the second floor.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on April 06, 2019, 10:30:57 PM
Provide even a single 11/22 source that has Oswald encountered by Baker on the second floor.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
 
Perhaps you sir can provide a single, provable, and reliable 11/22/'63 source that encountered LeeOswald on the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance stairs/landing during the fatal shooting of JohnKennedySr and critical wounding of JohnConnallyJr on 11/22/'63, at or about 12:30pm, CST. 
For if you do so, I will walk away from this thread forever, providing such evidence is provided before 05/01/'19, and a 'call offer' is made 3 days in advance, and with a similar "Walk Away" type wager... Walk:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 06, 2019, 10:34:35 PM

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

Those are not from 11/22/63. I wouldn't bother playing his game though.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 01:09:05 AM
Those other factual errors don't matter and can be ignored. Apparently.

Mr Kent Biffle's corroborative mention of an Oswald sighting in a first-floor storage room can be ignored. Apparently!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 01:27:37 AM
Citations please for any of them saying ?second floor? and saying it on 11/22.

First official appearance of the lunchroom story!

(https://i.imgur.com/KkVOxf2.jpg)

As Mr S Murphy pointed out several years back, the words "he accompanied the officer into the front of the building. They saw no one there [...]" are striking because they needlessly refer to a non-encounter-------------
at a location which just so happens to be the very location which Mr Holmes was to hear Mr Oswald identify as the location of his encounter with a police officer:

Vestibule: front entrance, first floor.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 01:32:53 AM
Those are not from 11/22/63. I wouldn't bother playing his game though.

What game would that be? The game of chronological accuracy?  :-\
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 01:53:24 AM
Now!

Prior to 19 February 2019, the only direct evidence we had of what Mr Oswald had really claimed as to his whereabouts at the time of the assassination was Mr Holmes's rather convoluted recollection.

Mr Holmes was categorical on one point:

Mr Oswald had claimed that the encounter with the police officer and Mr Truly had taken place in the vestibule: front entrance, first floor. No doubt in Mr Holmes's mind about this.

Mr Holmes also recalled Mr Oswald's having mentioned a coke, but was far more muddled about where it fit into Mr Oswald's story:

"But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved. He mentioned something about a coke."

Thankfully------ Thumb1:------- the revelation on 19 February 2019 of Agent Hosty's handwritten account of what Mr Oswald had said in custody clarified the issue beyond any doubt:
------------purchased Coca Cola in 2nd fl lunchroom before the parade
------------came back down to 1st fl
------------"Then went outside to watch the P. parade".

The Hosty notes could hardly have been clearer. Their revelation delivered an even worse body blow to the Anti-Prayer-Man zealots than the release of the photograph of white-haired Ms Sarah Stanton!

So!

Since 19 Feb, the primary question has moved on
from
---------Where did Mr Oswald claim to have been during the assassination?
to
---------Was Mr Oswald telling the truth when he claimed to have been outside during the assassination and to have had an exchange with a police officer at the front entrance just after it?

My money remains firmly on a resounding yes as the answer to this latter question!

Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 02:30:28 AM
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/NYHT-Nov-22-1963.jpg)

This article is clearly a composite of in situ Depository reporting and poor hearsay reporting of events elsewhere.

Interesting item:

(https://i.imgur.com/3j4xL8h.jpg)

Cf #1!:

The fine color photos which Mr P Speer took of a shirt found at Mr Oswald's Beckley apartment:

(https://i.imgur.com/kbuUeUO.png)

Cf #2!:

Mr Oswald's reported claim to Captain Fritz that he wore "a reddish colored long sleeved, shirt with a button-down collar" to work that day and changed out of it at his Beckley apartment.

Noteworthy also!:

The co-workers' description of the shirt as rather limp.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 09:48:55 PM
And for the record, I think that Prayerman was some dude taking pictures with a camera

By raising one hand to his mouth

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

:D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 07, 2019, 10:42:06 PM
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

Forensic linguists and expertise researchers can spot that the beehive hair we see on Davidson's enhanced-face woman's head in Wiegman versus the short receding hairline we see in Darnell has an obvious explanation that the liars and trolls like Alan who I suspect is secretly communicating with Jim D and the Barker gang of paid disinformationalists are so scared of. Her wig-in-a-professional-situation must have fallen off between the two films. This proves that Sarah Stanton is Prayer Woman and that Oswald was shown out the back by Shelley 72.3 seconds after Shelley gave the billfold to the other Oswald in the vestibule of the tent behind the picket fence. When I pointed this out to Lauren he said he'd get back to my email but he never did because he's threatened by my powers of intellect, which is sad because I helped him that time with that battery issue.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on April 08, 2019, 08:29:28 AM
By raising one hand to his mouth

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/prayer-man-in-wiegman-gif.gif?w=612&h=465)

:D

Great GIF, Mr. Ford, but to my eyes, it shows PrayerDude holding up both arms, taking a picture with a (movie?) camera.  You (rather, I) can see his elbows.  That's just what I see, see?  We all can agree to disagree without any ad homs.  Respect for your civility+
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 08, 2019, 03:25:34 PM
Great GIF, Mr. Ford, but to my eyes, it shows PrayerDude holding up both arms, taking a picture with a (movie?) camera.  You (rather, I) can see his elbows.  That's just what I see, see?  We all can agree to disagree without any ad homs.  Respect for your civility+

See the beehive hair on the 'woman's' 'enhanced' face, Mr Oblazney? That's actually Prayer Man's brow. Look at a comparison of Prayer Man in Wiegman and Darnell and you'll see it! Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 09, 2019, 12:47:02 AM
It's quite obvious that when Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz that he "went outside to watch the Presidential parade" this was coded language for "stayed inside the second-floor lunchroom". Mr Oswald was taking a risk here, as there will always be literal-minded fools out there willing to interpret words like "outside", "parade" and "vestibule" in their superficial dictionary sense.

Captain Fritz, being privy to Mr Oswald's secret code system, was worried that some activist citizen would get access to the code and reveal the true meaning of Mr Oswald's claim. So he saw to it that Mr Oswald's claim was buried.

Thankfully, however, the revelation of Agent Hosty's notes finally allows us to confirm that Mr Oswald did indeed relay to Captain Fritz through a coded message that he had stayed inside the second-floor lunchroom for the P. parade.

We're making progress, friends!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on April 10, 2019, 05:49:28 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" 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)
bump+
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Anthony Clayden on April 10, 2019, 11:34:22 PM
394 pages discussing a blurry image, which is still a blurry distorted image.
If the time spent on this thread was converted to money, then we could have raised thousands to pay for a better image.



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2019, 11:42:35 PM
Hughes film

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/hughes-lady-white.png)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2019, 11:57:45 PM
Bronson

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/bronson-lady-white.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 11, 2019, 05:13:20 AM
Hughes film

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/hughes-lady-white.png)

Iacoletti,

Do you think that's the same woman who, during the motorcade, was standing near Gloria Calvery (herself wearing a black blouse and a black headscarf and a greenish colored skirt with dark bands in it in Zapruder, and visibly wearing glasses with the same black blouse and the same black headscarf in Betzner-3), and who can be seen walking up the TSBD steps in Couch-Darnell, trying to "pull" Calvery (still wearing her black blouse and her black headscarf and her skirt with the two dark horizontal bands in it) up the steps with her?

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 11, 2019, 08:12:06 PM
^ An historic day indeed, let's not "spoil" it.  One love.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 12, 2019, 06:23:46 AM
Friends, if Prayer Man is not Mr Oswald, a Depository employee who claimed to have gone "outside to watch P. parade" but was murdered before he could defend himself, then who can he be?

Five-and-a-half years on, we're still waiting for a credible (& preferably non-bilocating, non-wig-wearing) alternative candidate!

Maybe there's a reason for this?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 12, 2019, 10:47:00 PM
Three times I posted it and told you exactly what it was and you still can't work it out?

Use you're damned eyes.
(https://i.imgur.com/9YbFyo7.jpg)

*Thanks Alan, much love.

 Thumb1:

I have to say though, Mr Pollard, the paranoid side of me suspects that Mr Sykes photoshopped a pearl collar necklace onto Mr Oswald's neck. Do you see what I'm seeing?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 12, 2019, 10:57:37 PM
How John has the patience for his I have no idea, personally I listen to Ludwig's 9th to keep positive but I'm needing some herbal medicine r now already.

I see it Alan, it's the infamous Tshirt we all have in our mind's eye yes but I took it part of the sketch work, now you made me look I just noticed the shoulder down lean, let's see Brian find us an image of Lee leaning like that and stumble about posting a link to it.

GOT TO STAY POSITIVE.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 12, 2019, 11:30:14 PM
Looks more like you than it does Lee Brian.

(https://i.imgur.com/0CIsGTl.jpg)

So do you recognize the original image that Sykes took it from?

Of course you don't so stop... wasting... our time...
oh I...~
ROTFLMFAO.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 12, 2019, 11:36:33 PM
A moment of clarity from the archives.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7398/12265373053_10cb16bbee_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 12, 2019, 11:40:56 PM
Brothers run your course joyously, like a hero towards victory!

(http://i.imgur.com/jmyVMNZ.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 12, 2019, 11:50:09 PM
Looks more like you than it does Lee Brian.

(https://i.imgur.com/0CIsGTl.jpg)

So do you recognize the original image that Sykes took it from?

Of course you don't so stop... wasting... our time...
oh I...~
ROTFLMFAO.

Barry is ignoring my proofs that Sykes took a photo image of Oswald and superimposed it on Sarah Stanton who Wanda couldn't rule out was wearing a pearl collar necklace that day. Credible researchers with a sharp eye like mine know that forensic photogrammetry measuring two points lying on a plane parallel to the photographic image plane will one day prove this at the granular level of analysis, which would make sense because McWatters said the wheels on the bus went round and round. Gilbride knows what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 12, 2019, 11:57:57 PM
God love you Alan and Tommy too for bringing some much needed humor to this forum.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 13, 2019, 01:17:21 AM


I'm going to request that Duncan prohibit the scrolling text....  It's very annoying.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 13, 2019, 11:02:05 PM
As it was, and continues...

You certainly wander as you wonder, Larry.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 14, 2019, 10:08:56 AM
No he didn?t. You made that up.

Iacoletti is ignoring that Lovelady did say that... I feel I saw those words online some time back. Or they came to me in a dream. Or to Gilbride in a dream and he told me about it... Either way Lovelady definitely said it and the community can't handle this proof that Stanton is Prayer Man...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 14, 2019, 11:28:15 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/0CIsGTl.jpg)


Whilst looking for this image in a form I could copy and post(it was the hard) I read where Sykes commented on it, exactly because of what Brian was claiming. He said it was a sketch, plain and the simples and what he was trying to portray was, basically, a man back in the corner with his reflection on the glass, probably his explanation/theory for why PM looks a bit wider than we'd expect(not an exact quote btw), perhaps he too agreed with Miller's observation that "the guys too broad" or w/e, no pun intended.  I have no real trouble with the width, I still think it's the shirt but who can tell with this low quality imagery? It's a joke to me when folks are claiming what we see there proves anything, we're still at the imagination phase.

What I'm more concerned with right now is Brian mistaking the above face with that of a real image of LHO. I mean, shouldn't we all be worried?
Can't move on until he talks about this specifically.

Cool? Cool.
(https://i.imgur.com/h0U3ElS.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 14, 2019, 12:48:20 PM
I have no real trouble with the width, I still think it's the shirt but who can tell with this low quality imagery?

To quote the Greatest JFK Researcher Living (And Probably Of All Time): "Prayer Man is wearing a shirt that isn't tucked in"  Thumb1:

A reporter in the Depository 11/22 heard from Mr Oswald's co-workers that he wore a "rather limp" reddish-brownish shirt to work that day:

(https://i.imgur.com/3j4xL8h.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/kbuUeUO.png)

I believe this actual shirt is exactly what we're seeing on the Oswald-hairlined figure in the Darnell film:

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

(https://i.imgur.com/Q7DtQGf.gif)

No credible candidate other than Mr Oswald---------who, let us remind ourselves, told Captain Fritz he "went outside to watch P. parade"---------has been put forward!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 14, 2019, 02:23:39 PM
Let's defamilarise the image we've all looked at a thousand times by flipping it!

(https://i.imgur.com/9YhGCgq.jpg)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 14, 2019, 08:07:25 PM
There is more chance that Prayer Man is Mr Billy Lovelady himself than that Prayer Man is Ms Sarah Stanton!

And less chance that Prayer Man is Mr Billy Lovelady than that Prayer Man is Mr Lee Harvey Oswald!

But no... let's continue with this Mad Hatter's obsession over Ms Stanton, a person whose candidacy for Prayer Man died a definitive death the moment a contemporary photograph of her surfaced  ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 14, 2019, 08:14:17 PM
There is more chance that Prayer Man is Mr Billy Lovelady himself than that Prayer Man is Ms Sarah Stanton!

And less chance that Prayer Man is Mr Billy Lovelady than that Prayer Man is Mr Lee Harvey Oswald!

But no... let's continue with this Mad Hatter's obsession over Ms Stanton, a person whose candidacy for Prayer Man died a definitive death the moment a contemporary photograph of her surfaced  ::)

Where was Sarah Stanton? If she's not Prayer man, then point out where she can be seen in the film footage.

There's less chance that Prayer Man is Lee Harvey Oswald than there is that Prayer Man is Fat Peter Clemenza.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 14, 2019, 08:59:00 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/0zSf6Ub.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yFV9Wgf.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/RZIVniV.jpg)
Cankles and no visible hips.

Bumped for Tim, my opinion only.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 14, 2019, 09:08:35 PM

No chubbies allowed.
(https://i.imgur.com/DizPANX.jpg)

Another bump, for Brian.
Can we tell a sleeve "in direct sunlight" from a bare arm, in an image where the person under scrutiny has no discernible facial features?  Fat chance but atm my money's on what the above image is telling me and that's kinda "obvious".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 14, 2019, 09:27:58 PM
The same quality image shows LHO with no facial features, you have zero credibility when it comes to images, what you talking Mr Avatar?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 14, 2019, 09:42:32 PM
Bumped for Tim, my opinion only.

Why would you think that woman was Sarah Stanton? Sure, she was a large woman but her hair is not gray. You can see it better in later frames when she is facing the camera. Also, how in the heck did she manage to get way out there so quickly from the top of the steps? She's standing there fully stopped and Baker has just left his motorcycle. 

Stanton should still be on the steps. I'm wondering where she is if not in the shadows on the west side of the entrance steps.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 14, 2019, 11:06:06 PM
Why would you think that woman was Sarah Stanton? Sure, she was a large woman but her hair is not gray. You can see it better in later frames when she is facing the camera. Also, how in the heck did she manage to get way out there so quickly from the top of the steps? She's standing there fully stopped and Baker has just left his motorcycle. 

Stanton should still be on the steps. I'm wondering where she is if not in the shadows on the west side of the entrance steps.

He should have put a "question mark" next to her or the arrow, but now it's on the Internet forever, just like Robin Unger's horribly mislabeled-in-yellow-letters Z-151 frame.

-- MWT 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 15, 2019, 12:08:51 AM
Why would you think that woman was Sarah Stanton? Sure, she was a large woman but her hair is not gray. You can see it better in later frames when she is facing the camera. Also, how in the heck did she manage to get way out there so quickly from the top of the steps? She's standing there fully stopped and Baker has just left his motorcycle. 

Stanton should still be on the steps. I'm wondering where she is if not in the shadows on the west side of the entrance steps.
 

The president is coming, so she could have dyed her hair the day before knowing she'd be out on the street with everyone... what?  She could have also left the steps earlier than she remembered (with the other one, Saunders or w/e), have you tried lining up the testimonies with the footage, there's holes all over the shop, this should/would be no surprise.

The reason we are here on page400++ and on the net since 2013, you really think the general pop' give a hoot Tommy?
Six months ago I posted that and it's never been seen since until I just bumped it but I'll take it as a compliment.
I
(https://i.imgur.com/pXUP71a.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 15, 2019, 12:11:04 AM
Let's defamilarise the image we've all looked at a thousand times by flipping it!

(https://i.imgur.com/9YhGCgq.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Very clear he's not on the landing, weird.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 15, 2019, 12:15:04 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/h0U3ElS.jpg)

Does this still look like LHO's face to you Brian?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 15, 2019, 12:20:01 AM
Or this?
(https://i.imgur.com/0CIsGTl.jpg)
^
^genuine mistake actually.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 15, 2019, 12:25:16 AM
Go work us some magic Brian, I'm sure your phone can handle it.
https://www.freeonlinephotoeditor.com/
Need a lil' help?  Just ask.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 15, 2019, 03:06:53 AM
Where was Sarah Stanton?

She was to Mr Frazier's left during the parade, Mr Nickerson. Prayer Man (in Hughes, Wiegman and Darnell) is well over to Mr Frazier's right!

 Thumb1:

Quote
If she's not Prayer man, then point out where she can be seen in the film footage.

She can't be seen in Hughes, Wiegman or Altgens, as she's back in the shadows just left (=east) of Mr Frazier.

Mr Pollard may have found large, white-haired Ms Stanton in Darnell, but we can't be sure it's her. But from a Prayer Man point of view, who cares? Finding Ms Stanton in Darnell is no more important than finding Ms Pauline Sanders or Mr Williams or Mr Molina or any number of other people. Prayer Man is well over by the west wall of the entrance in Wiegman as well as in Darnell, so none of those people can possibly be him!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 15, 2019, 03:08:10 AM
Why would you think that woman was Sarah Stanton? Sure, she was a large woman but her hair is not gray. You can see it better in later frames when she is facing the camera. Also, how in the heck did she manage to get way out there so quickly from the top of the steps? She's standing there fully stopped and Baker has just left his motorcycle. 

Stanton should still be on the steps. I'm wondering where she is if not in the shadows on the west side of the entrance steps.

Are you also wondering where Ms Pauline Sanders and Mr Otis Williams and Mr Joe Molina are if not in the shadows on the west side of the entrance steps?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 15, 2019, 03:10:36 AM
Very clear he's not on the landing, weird.

Indeed, Mr Pollard! So much angry commentary has been thrown at that Darnell frame, our eyes have long since stopped seeing what was originally pretty plain to see.

(https://i.imgur.com/9YhGCgq.jpg)

At least one foot one step down.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 15, 2019, 06:16:14 AM
She was to Mr Frazier's left during the parade, Mr Nickerson. Prayer Man (in Hughes, Wiegman and Darnell) is well over to Mr Frazier's right!

How do you know that? Where is she in Darnell?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 15, 2019, 06:18:24 AM
Are you also wondering where Ms Pauline Sanders and Mr Otis Williams and Mr Joe Molina are if not in the shadows on the west side of the entrance steps?

Sanders, Williams and Molina were to the east of Billy Lovelady. Molina can be seen just to the right of Lovelady in the Altgens photo.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 15, 2019, 06:50:56 AM
Are you also wondering where Ms Pauline Sanders and Mr Otis Williams and Mr Joe Molina are if not in the shadows on the west side of the entrance steps?

In his March 19 affidavit, Williams stated that he was on the top step on the East side.  In his March 25 affidavit, Molina stated that he stood on the top step of the entrance and that he viewed the motorcade with Pauline Sanders and Otis Williams. In her March 19 affidavit, Pauline Sanders stated that she stood on the top step on the East side.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 15, 2019, 10:18:57 AM
We do realize do we not, that there were are a couple witnesses at least, who went about their normal everyday business after Kennedy was cut down?  Then, as soon as they heard about what happened they rushed back and got in contact with the police to tell them, not only that they were there but they were right outside the building where all the focus was now centred.  STANTON may have had that same instinct about the importance of the building and put herself closer to it but hey, wth do I know?  Even the hairstyle matches on the woman I like, if Brian had even that, which he does not, we'd never hear the end of it.

Also, Tommy.
Do you think Brian has a case at all with the PM=Stanton match?  If so why?  IMHO it's ridiculous, I cannot take it serious, nothing matches only the idea that she was nearby at one stage and on the landing(undoubtedly) and could well be still there somewhere in Darnell.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 15, 2019, 10:22:36 AM
Indeed, Mr Pollard! So much angry commentary has been thrown at that Darnell frame, our eyes have long since stopped seeing what was originally pretty plain to see.

(https://i.imgur.com/9YhGCgq.jpg)

At least one foot one step down.

 Thumb1:

It's crazy obvious Alan but you know, confusing.
Anyone else see it and want to PMan up to it?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 15, 2019, 10:51:15 AM
You thought this was LHO correct Brian?  Have you change your mind yet or do I need to blow this up some more for you?
(https://i.imgur.com/0CIsGTl.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 15, 2019, 10:52:09 AM
Sanders, Williams and Molina were to the east of Billy Lovelady. Molina can be seen just to the right of Lovelady in the Altgens photo.

OK, show us them in Darnell!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 15, 2019, 10:54:08 AM
In his March 19 affidavit, Williams stated that he was on the top step on the East side.  In his March 25 affidavit, Molina stated that he stood on the top step of the entrance and that he viewed the motorcade with Pauline Sanders and Otis Williams. In her March 19 affidavit, Pauline Sanders stated that she stood on the top step on the East side.

 :D  And none of these individuals mentioned Ms Stanton, thereby helping us confirm Mr Frazier's locating of her to his left?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 15, 2019, 11:10:00 PM
It's crazy obvious Alan but you know, confusing.
Anyone else see it and want to PMan up to it?

It's very simple really, Mr Pollard. If it were possible to identify PM as Mr Lovelady, they'd all have seen it from the start. And the truly ridiculous suggestion that this could be Ms Sarah Stanton would never have been put forward...

 ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 15, 2019, 11:54:56 PM
So I can't help but wonder, since Brian concocted or latched on to this whacky Stanton "ID", he must have said "PM is Stanton" on the net what...  400 times?  Has Tommy ever complained about it or is it only when we stamp people in images themselves with a handle that he becomes concerned?

^ Have to agree Alan, this Stanton thing is just a counter to the whole PM=LHO and a massive troll, it's the only logical explanation for the freaky reactions to the clear and simple instructions I've been giving this particular so called researcher.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 15, 2019, 11:59:54 PM
You thought this was LHO correct Brian?  Have you change your mind yet or do I need to blow this up some more for you?
(https://i.imgur.com/0CIsGTl.jpg)

Bumpty bump.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 16, 2019, 12:10:58 AM
... You can see it better in later frames when she is facing the camera... 

I know Tim, I was using an old browser/machine at the time and was lucky I got that frame, now I'm getting back up to speed I'll get around to it soon, cheers.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 16, 2019, 01:19:11 AM
OK, show us them in Darnell!  Thumb1:

Andrej Stancak highlighted them quite nicely over on another forum site last June. I can PM you with a link to it if you like.

Now, would you please answer my question? How do you know that Sarah Stanton was to Mr Frazier's left during the parade?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 16, 2019, 01:21:24 AM
:D  And none of these individuals mentioned Ms Stanton, thereby helping us confirm Mr Frazier's locating of her to his left?

When did Frazier place her to his left?  ???
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 16, 2019, 04:41:57 AM
So I can't help but wonder, since Brian concocted or latched on to this whacky Stanton "ID", he must have said "PM is Stanton" on the net what...  400 times?  Has Tommy ever complained about it or is it only when we stamp people in images themselves with a handle that he becomes concerned?

^ Have to agree Alan, this Stanton thing is just a counter to the whole PM=LHO and a massive troll, it's the only logical explanation for the freaky reactions to the clear and simple instructions I've been giving this particular so called researcher.

Brian (and Bob Prudhomme and Sandy Larsen) and I agree that Gloria Calvery can be seen talking to a man on the lower part of the TSBD steps in Darnell.  Buell Wesley Frazier did say in his Sixth Floor Museum interview that he and a Sarah who was on the steps or landing turned towards each other in disbelief when a "girl" ran up crying to the steps and said in a loud voice that JFK had been shot. When you compare Weigman with Darnell, you can see that at some point during the approx 30-second gap between those two films' coverage of the steps, Prayer Person and Frazier did turn towards each other, and that they are still turned towards each other while Calvery is down below, talking with Billy Lovelady (or perhaps Joe Molina).

All-in-all it's reasonable to assume that, indistinct photography of Prayer Person notwithstanding, Prayer Person could very well be the Sarah that Frazier spoke about in his interview.

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 16, 2019, 10:11:09 AM
Andrej Stancak highlighted them quite nicely over on another forum site last June. I can PM you with a link to it if you like.

 :D

I am well aware of Mr Stancak's work, Mr Nickerson. Are you? Do you know that he has confidently identified PM as Mr Oswald, and definitively ruled out Ms Stanton (whom he has identified elsewhere on the steps)?

Quote
Now, would you please answer my question? How do you know that Sarah Stanton was to Mr Frazier's left during the parade?

-----------Because Mr Frazier has said so in interviews (e.g. to Mr G Mack)
-----------Because Ms P Sanders puts herself on the east side of the entranceway, and Ms Stanton beside her

At the time of the shooting, Ms Stanton was back on the landing in a cluster of people that included Mr Frazier, Ms Sanders, Mr Molina, Mr O Williams, Mr Shelley, and Mr Lovelady.

All this was established years ago, Mr Nickerson. You've got nothing. Your desire to make Ms Stanton Prayer Man is as wild and rather desperate as your desire to throw makey-uppy numbers at an official form whose data you don't like!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 16, 2019, 10:24:57 AM
So I can't help but wonder, since Brian concocted or latched on to this whacky Stanton "ID", he must have said "PM is Stanton" on the net what...  400 times?  Has Tommy ever complained about it or is it only when we stamp people in images themselves with a handle that he becomes concerned?

^ Have to agree Alan, this Stanton thing is just a counter to the whole PM=LHO and a massive troll, it's the only logical explanation for the freaky reactions to the clear and simple instructions I've been giving this particular so called researcher.

It's rather amusing, Mr Pollard, watching the LNs continue to grasp the illusory straw being held out by a clearly troubled individual with a pathological habit of misrepresenting even the most basic of facts. It must kill them that Prayer Man can't be Mr Lovelady or Mr Viles! :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 16, 2019, 01:49:59 PM
I think it's the other way around for Brian; i.e., since Cavery is already at the steps about 25 seconds after the final shot, that must be Lovelady and Shelley walking down Elm Street Extension, and Shelley must have later confused "Running Woman" (Karan Hicks, who said something to them in passing) with Calvery.

That?s a circular argument. You could just as easily say that Shelley talked to Calvery on the concrete island so that can?t be her on the steps.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on April 16, 2019, 07:21:46 PM
Stanton and Prayer man combined overlay with equal transparency levels. (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Mutley.gif)

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

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Stanton Overlay Comparison.png)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 16, 2019, 07:54:25 PM
At 1.25 of this audio from Mr Frazier's HSCA interview...



...Mr Frazier mentions the "large, heavy-set lady" beside him in the front entrance, and adds:

"She was blond-headed then."

Oh dear. Yet another stake in the heart of the Stanton=PM theory!   :'(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 16, 2019, 08:04:09 PM

I am well aware of Mr Stancak's work, Mr Nickerson. Are you? Do you know that he has confidently identified PM as Mr Oswald, and definitively ruled out Ms Stanton (whom he has identified elsewhere on the steps)?

Actually, when I said that Stancak highlighted them nicely, I meant that he highlighted Molina and Williams quite nicely. His placement and highlighting of Sanders is questionable. You say that he has confidently identified PM as Mr Oswald, and definitively ruled out Ms Stanton (whom he has identified elsewhere on the steps)? Well, I'll be the judge of that. Send me a link to it in a PM or post it here if you're allowed to.

Quote
-----------Because Mr Frazier has said so in interviews (e.g. to Mr G Mack)

Is that a fact? Andrej Stancak made that very same claim himself back in June of last year. He even post a link to the time point of a video apparently to back up his statement. Here is what he wrote:

"Mr. Frazier resoundingly confirmed that Mr. Stanton stood to his left, consistent with Mrs. Stanton's own and other people's testimonies, in his 2002 interview with Gary Mack (53:15)."
 



You said interviews. Was that one of them? Have you actually watched and listened to that video yourself? It does not substantiate Stancak's claim. He was telling a falsehood. Are you doing the same here? No? Then, what else have you got?

Quote
-----------Because Ms P Sanders puts herself on the east side of the entranceway, and Ms Stanton beside her

At the time of the shooting, Ms Stanton was back on the landing in a cluster of people that included Mr Frazier, Ms Sanders, Mr Molina, Mr O Williams, Mr Shelley, and Mr Lovelady.

Sarah Stanton said that she was standing with Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady, among others. Were Shelley and Lovelady standing on the east side of the steps?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 16, 2019, 08:12:25 PM
At 1.25 of this audio from Mr Frazier's HSCA interview...



...Mr Frazier mentions the "large, heavy-set lady" beside him in the front entrance, and adds:

"She was blond-headed then."

Oh dear. Yet another stake in the heart of the Stanton=PM theory!   :'(

Do I hear him saying beginning at 2:30, "so we stepped back in,  Sarah and I stepped back into the shadow"?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 16, 2019, 08:13:44 PM
Actually, when I said that Stancak highlighted them nicely, I meant that he highlighted Molina and Williams quite nicely. His placement and highlighting of Sanders is questionable. You say that he has confidently identified PM as Mr Oswald, and definitively ruled out Ms Stanton (whom he has identified elsewhere on the steps)? Well, I'll be the judge of that. Send me a link to it in a PM or post it here if you're allowed to.

Is that a fact? Andrej Stancak made that very same claim himself back in June of last year. He even post a link to the time point of a video apparently to back up his statement. Here is what he wrote:

"Mr. Frazier resoundingly confirmed that Mr. Stanton stood to his left, consistent with Mrs. Stanton's own and other people's testimonies, in his 2002 interview with Gary Mack (53:15)."
 



You said interviews. Was that one of them? Have you actually watched and listened to that video yourself? It does not substantiate Stancak's claim. He was telling a falsehood. Are you doing the same here? No? Then, what else have you got?

Sarah Stanton said that she was standing with Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady, among others. Were Shelley and Lovelady standing on the east side of the steps?

 :D

Your performance on this issue, Mr Nickerson, is even more embarrassing than your performance on the curtain rods issue!

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 16, 2019, 08:16:30 PM
:D

Your performance on this issue, Mr Nickerson, is even more embarrassing than your performance on the curtain rods issue!


He points to both his left and his right. Sorry Alan, try again.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 16, 2019, 08:24:12 PM
He points to both his left and his right. Sorry Alan, try again.

 :D

As anyone who clicks on the video link----------------



and watches Mr Frazier indicate with heartbreaking clarity that Sarah was to his left----------------

(https://i.imgur.com/h6IqYFr.jpg)

can easily verify for themselves, this post of yours, Mr Nickerson, is even more embarrassing than your last one!

Another entertaining insight into the mind of a Warren Gullible zealot. Thank you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Brown on April 16, 2019, 08:30:29 PM
Do I hear him saying beginning at 2:30, "so we stepped back in,  Sarah and I stepped back into the shadow"?

"So we stepped back in.  Several of 'em stepped back in."
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 16, 2019, 08:36:31 PM
You said interviews. Was that one of them? Have you actually watched and listened to that video yourself? It does not substantiate Stancak's claim.

I think he's referring to this:

Mack: Was there anyone back there with you?
Frazier: Yes, there was a lady that worked up in one of the offices and I do not remember her name.
Mack: Was she off to your right or off to your left?
Frazier: Left

Whether he means Stanton or not, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 16, 2019, 10:28:21 PM
Of course, if Prayer Man is Mr Oswald, we don't need to find Ms Stanton on the steps in Darnell. For it was with Mr Oswald, not with her, that Mr Frazier would have exchanged stares. Mr Frazier just hasn't been able to admit to Mr Oswald's presence yet.

Mr Frazier has talked vividly about his mutual stare and exchange of words with Ms Stanton. Does anyone seriously believe that, were Ms Stanton really Prayer Man, Mr Frazier would not recall where she was standing at this time? And that, when shown Prayer Man in the Darnell film over five years ago, he would not have immediately and effortlessly been able to identify the figure as Ms Stanton, the person he had exchanged that stare with?

I know of at least two people who will seriously believe such a ridiculous idea, but they shall remain nameless here!   :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 16, 2019, 10:53:57 PM
Perhaps the incredible 5 years it took Mr Frazier to identify Prayer Man as the woman he had already many times clearly remembered as having been on the steps with him are explained by the fact that he feared the repercussions of such a monumental admission! It must have taken some courage to finally come out with it!

 :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 16, 2019, 11:59:31 PM
So you still think this is/was(RIP) LHO Brian.  And you wonder why I give you no credit.
(https://i.imgur.com/0CIsGTl.jpg)

A lil something something 4U.


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 17, 2019, 12:03:53 AM
This might help those tired eyes of yours. 
(https://i.imgur.com/OXKm08y.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 17, 2019, 12:04:59 AM
Embarrassing when you forget to log out, no?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 17, 2019, 12:12:54 AM
Among multiple Motorcade viewers known to be on the TSBD Bldg Elm St entrance stairs and/or landing at the time, why is there not a single eyewitness that has testified that LeeHarveyOswald was there among them as the shots were fired that caused the fatal wounding of PresidentKennedy and critical wounding of GovernorConnally? And yet, after going past PrayerPersonImage while entering the TSBD Bldg, DPD Officer MarrionBaker and TSBD Superintendent RoyTruly encountered LeeHarveyOswald at the 2nd floor lunchroom about 45 seconds later.

Oh, but you know the answer to this, Mr Trotter, as you have been told it many times. That you don't like the answer-------because robotically opposing Prayer Man in support of the new Mr Cinque's wacky theory seems to be about your only purpose in being here-------is not my problem!  Thumb1:

Quote
It is worth remembering that the accused LoneGunmanAssassin, LeeHarveyOswald, soon became arguably the most famous accused gunman in history.

 :D

Operative word: soon!

Mr Oswald was a nobody at the time of the assassination. He popped out front at a moment when everybody's attention was on the street, and was not generally noticed. Very shortly after the shooting, he went back inside.

Difficult to believe? Not at all. How many people on the steps, Mr Trotter, noticed a helmeted policeman tearing up those steps past them and into the building? How many people noticed Mr Oswald exit the building a few minutes later? Hm?

Mr Frazier, of course, did notice Mr Oswald on the steps, but was told to shut up. Mr Truly encountered him in the vestibule with a police officer, but that incident got moved up to the 2nd fl lunchroom in order to steal Mr Oswald's clear alibi for the shooting.

Thankfully, however, Messrs Wiegman and Darnell caught Mr Oswald on film. (Of course, you will continue to believe it's blond-haired, to-the-left-of-Mr-Frazier Ms Stanton, but that's only because you, lacking critical faculties of your own, just parrot whatever the new Ralph Cinque says!  :D )

And thankfully, we now know that Mr Oswald himself told Captain Fritz that he went outside to watch the Presidential parade after his visit to the 2nd fl lunchroom. Just like the Prayer Man people argued from the start!

Have you confirmed what time and date the assassination occurred, Mr Trotter? And ascertained the names of the victims? Inquiring fellow-researchers need this information urgently!
 
Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 17, 2019, 12:17:07 AM
So was Karen Westbrook.

(https://media.tenor.com/images/27f16871c55a3376fa4bfdd76ac2ab5c/tenor.gif)

Put all the people that were there that day in one room and anyone one of us(you know who you are) would know more about that day than the lot of 'em.
"I was there" don't mean squat.  In fact, you should be scared of those folks and those that fawn over them because they are all about their feelings and remembrances which is the complete opposite to what we are supposed to be doing.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 17, 2019, 12:21:00 AM
This might help those tired eyes of yours. 
(https://i.imgur.com/OXKm08y.jpg)

I'm ignoring Pollard...He's being allowed to get away with murder by denying my good proofs...His JimD-like evasions do not overturn the forensic points I made about credible photogrammetry confirming that this is a photo of Oswald superimposed through infra-pixelation procedures over Sarah Stanton...He has no answer to the fact that I have established that Stanton stood on the west side of the entrance as a diet suppressant methodology in a Presidential-visit professional situation... My evidence science here is unanswerable despite Pollard's childish game-playing
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 17, 2019, 12:35:17 AM
He has no answer to the fact that I have established that Stanton stood on the west side of the entrance as a diet suppressant methodology in a Presidential-visit professional situation...

"Diet suppressant methodology".

(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)

You can't possibly be for real.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 17, 2019, 12:38:47 AM
"Diet suppressant methodology".

(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)

You can't possibly be for real.

I'm ignoring Iacoletti again... His uncredibly naysaying good evidence is typical of the community that doesn't understand the best evidence on the internet on the topic...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 17, 2019, 12:51:58 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/8fSxj9M.jpg)

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

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

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

You claimed that Frazier said that Sarah Stanton was to his left in interviews (e.g. to Mr G Mack). That was a false statement on your part.  In the interview with Gary Mack, he did not name the woman who stood to his left. The interview in which he points to both the left and the right was with Tom Meros. Frazier did NOT specifically state that Sarah Stanton stood to his left. He has stated on at least one occasion that Sarah Stanton was standing near him on the top step back in the shadows. Where is the woman standing to his left, back in the shadows?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 17, 2019, 01:27:50 AM
"So we stepped back in.  Several of 'em stepped back in."

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

Here is a much more discernible statement from Frazier:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 17, 2019, 01:29:24 AM
You claimed that Frazier said that Sarah Stanton was to his left in interviews (e.g. to Mr G Mack). That was a false statement on your part.  In the interview with Gary Mack, he did not name the woman who stood to his left. The interview in which he points to both the left and the right was with Tom Meros. Frazier did NOT specifically state that Sarah Stanton stood to his left. He has stated on at least one occasion that Sarah Stanton was standing near him on the top step back in the shadows. Where is the woman standing to his left, back in the shadows?

Why do you do this to yourself, Mr Nickerson? Do you think it makes you look good to misrepresent the most basic of facts?

While Mr Frazier is talking about 'Sarah' on the steps, he gestures clearly--------i.e. in a way that even you can't deny----------to his left. Then-------i.e. after having made this point------he talks about something else. Very simple. No need to embarrass yourself further by denying it!  Thumb1:



Now!

In answer to your silly question:

The woman standing to Mr Frazier's left, back in the shadows, is standing there during the assassination. Like Mr Frazier, she can't be seen in any images taken during the assassination.

Get it now?  ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 17, 2019, 01:30:24 AM
Thanks Bill. I've have a terrible ear when comes to discerning statements like that.

You have a terrible eye too when it comes to discerning numbers, gestures and sundry other visual items!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 17, 2019, 01:34:10 AM

Mr Frazier, of course, did notice Mr Oswald on the steps, but was told to shut up. Mr Truly encountered him in the vestibule with a police officer, but that incident got moved up to the 2nd fl lunchroom in order to steal Mr Oswald's clear alibi for the shooting.


 ??? Frazier lied did he? I'll add him to your list of liars.

1.  Marion Baker
2.  Roy Truly
3.  Jeraldean Reid (AKA Mrs. Robert Reid)
4.  Will Fritz
5.  James Bookhout
6.  James Hosty
7.  Thomas Kelley
8.  Sarah Stanton
9.  Richard E. Harrison (The FBI agent who interviewed Carolyn Arnold on 11/26/63
10. Karen Westbrook
11. Buell Frazier
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 17, 2019, 01:34:48 AM


A devastating riposte, Mr Trotter. I'm suitably cowed!  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 17, 2019, 01:37:58 AM
Why do you do this to yourself, Mr Nickerson? Do you think it makes you look good to misrepresent the most basic of facts?

While Mr Frazier is talking about 'Sarah' on the steps, he gestures clearly--------i.e. in a way that even you can't deny----------to his left. Then-------i.e. after having made this point------he talks about something else. Very simple. No need to embarrass yourself further by denying it!  Thumb1:



Now!

In answer to your silly question:

The woman standing to Mr Frazier's left, back in the shadows, is standing there during the assassination. Like Mr Frazier, she can't be seen in any images taken during the assassination.

Get it now?  ::)

Frazier can be seen in Darnell. Where is Sarah Stanton in Darnell?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 17, 2019, 01:38:29 AM

 ??? Frazier lied did he?

Well, he certainly lied either when he testified that he didn't see Mr Oswald after the assassination or when he decades later claimed to have done so.

You disagree? Explain!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 17, 2019, 01:39:04 AM
Frazier can be seen in Darnell. Where is Sarah Stanton in Darnell?

Who knows? Who cares?  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 17, 2019, 01:47:10 AM
Well, he certainly lied either when he testified that he didn't see Mr Oswald after the assassination or when he decades later claimed to have done so.

You disagree? Explain!  Thumb1:

Rather than accuse him of lying, I'll give Frazier the benefit of doubt that he was having a false memory after four decades when he claimed to have seen Oswald after the assassination. He has turned out to be not very credible in his later years.  He's not the only one who remembered things differently decades after the fact.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 17, 2019, 01:50:11 AM
Who knows? Who cares?  Thumb1:

Someone who wants to eliminate Sarah Stanton as a prime candidate for Prayer Man should care. Frazier is seen quite clearly in Darnell. Where is Stanton?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 17, 2019, 01:50:20 AM
Rather than accuse him of lying, I'll give Frazier the benefit of doubt that he was having a false memory after four decades when he claimed to have seen Oswald after the assassination. He has turned out to be not very credible in his later years.  He's not the only one who remembered things differently decades after the fact.

 :D

Whatever gets you through the night as a Warren Gullible, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 17, 2019, 01:54:47 AM
:D

Whatever gets you through the night as a Warren Gullible, Mr Nickerson!  Thumb1:

Excuse me Alan, but I'm not the one here who has to claim that a dozen or so people lied in order to make my case. You have been sucked into the conspiracy vortex by conspiracy peddlars. You have bought into a load of nonsense. You are the gullible one here, not me.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 17, 2019, 01:56:37 AM
Someone who wants to eliminate Sarah Stanton as a prime candidate for Prayer Man should care. Frazier is seen quite clearly in Darnell. Where is Stanton?

Oh, blond-haired Ms Stanton, who was to Mr Frazier's left during the assassination, is already eliminated as Prayer Man!

Maybe she's somewhere there on the steps? Maybe she's still right beside Frazier? Maybe she's slipped back inside (the glass door is seen closing in Darnell, after all)? Maybe she's gone down into the street? Who knows? Who cares? She's not Prayer Man!  Thumb1:

Who's your next preposterous candidate, Mr Nickerson? Mr Dougherty? Forensic analysis of Mr Frazier's hand gestures in his 2013 interview do-----------it will interest you to know-------------prove that he's signalling 'J' and 'D' in semaphore!  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 17, 2019, 01:57:30 AM
Excuse me Alan, but I'm not the one here who has to claim that a dozen or so people lied in order to make my case. You have been sucked into the conspiracy vortex by conspiracy peddlars. You have bought into a load of nonsense. You are the gullible one here, not me.

Excuse me, Mr Nickerson, but I'm not the one who has fallen for a hoax perpetrated by the greatest JFK assassination lunatic since Mr R. Cinque!  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 17, 2019, 04:07:34 AM
Rather than accuse him of lying, I'll give Frazier the benefit of doubt that he was having a false memory after four decades when he claimed to have seen Oswald after the assassination.

Why would you assume it?s false?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 17, 2019, 04:41:43 AM
Why would you assume it?s false?

(https://i.imgur.com/RaKyP00.jpg)

Mr. BALL - When was the last time you can remember you saw Lee?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean on the 22d?
Mr. BALL - On the 22d, that day.
Mr. FRAZIER - Somewhere between it was after 10 and somewhere before noon, because I remember I was walking down to the first floor that day, that was the only time I went up on the elevator was, like I say, for a few minutes and, I put that box of books up and put it down, and I was on the first floor putting up books all day and I seen him back and forth and he would be walking and getting books and put on the order.
Mr. BALL - That was the last time you saw him all day?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 17, 2019, 05:40:50 AM
Mr. BALL - That was the last time you saw him all day?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right

So you can take a series of conflicting statements and just decide which is false?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 17, 2019, 06:07:15 AM
So you can take a series of conflicting statements and just decide which is false?

Your Memory is like the Telephone Game
Each time you recall an event, your brain distorts it
(https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2012/09/your-memory-is-like-the-telephone-game)

?Maybe a witness remembers something fairly accurately the first time because his memories aren?t that distorted,? she said. ?After that it keeps going downhill.?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 17, 2019, 06:12:12 AM
Your Memory is like the Telephone Game
Each time you recall an event, your brain distorts it
(https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2012/09/your-memory-is-like-the-telephone-game)

Does this apply to people like Brennan, Leavelle, Marina, and people looking at a mugshot picture months later?

Just checking.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 17, 2019, 06:35:17 AM
Does this apply to people like Brennan, Leavelle, Marina, and people looking at a mugshot picture months later?

Just checking.

Yes, of course it does. It also applies to people like Carolyn Arnold, Victoria Adams, and yes, even Jack Tatum.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Brown on April 17, 2019, 08:43:09 AM
Thanks Bill. I've have a terrible ear when comes to discerning statements like that.

Frazier has a bad habit of not speaking clearly.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 17, 2019, 08:59:50 AM
I see you can quote posts, so quote me where I said "white sleeve" and I'll admit I made a mistake.
I just told you as well, you cannot always tell the true color of something hit by sunlight and especially with a low resolution image like that.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 17, 2019, 11:32:28 AM
Another bump, for Brian.
Can we tell a sleeve "in direct sunlight" from a bare arm, in an image where the person under scrutiny has no discernible facial features?  Fat chance but atm my money's on what the above image is telling me and that's kinda "obvious".

TYG, I did your dirty work for you, or rather I cleaned your mess up.  Hit the link above the quote to see it in it's full context(a cword you may like to look up btw).

This is for the inner Brian.
Listen, I know it's personal, both for you and Duncan and I don't blame youz.  I mean, I'm aware of the Moorman in the street issue for example and was it "the famous five" or something?  The team of debunkers and how personal that got, but as far as I read, it never got as cheap as this.  But it's completely retraded to troll everyone that disagrees with you when you're this obvious about it.

Another thing about the Darnell sleeve frame, just look at how bleached out the people in front of PM are, how do you know the arm area on PM isn't being effected by all that artificial light. Like I'd ask you...  Anyway there's a mistake, because I still believe, like I saida before, that PM whoever he is, is IMO fully shaded(perhaps the hand is in the sun but that's it).  HAND. :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on April 17, 2019, 11:58:44 AM
TYG, I did your dirty work for you, or rather I cleaned your mess up.  Hit the link above the quote to see it in it's full context(a cword you may like to look up btw).

This is for the inner Brian.
Listen, I know it's personal, both for you and Duncan and I don't blame youz.  I mean, I'm aware of the Moorman in the street issue for example and was it "the famous five" or something?  The team of debunkers and how personal that got, but as far as I read, it never got as cheap as this.  But it's completely retraded to troll everyone that disagrees with you when you're this obvious about it.

Another thing about the Darnell sleeve frame, just look at how bleached out the people in front of PM are, how do you know the arm area on PM isn't being effected by all that artificial light. Like I'd ask you...  Anyway there's a mistake, because I still believe, like I saida before, that PM whoever he is, is IMO fully shaded(perhaps the hand is in the sun but that's it).  HAND. :)
Bump for Barry.  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  not knowing what he says.  It was a dude taking pictures with a camera. NOT Stanton.  Why is he here?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 17, 2019, 01:00:13 PM
Yes, of course it does. It also applies to people like Carolyn Arnold, Victoria Adams, and yes, even Jack Tatum.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Logan on April 17, 2019, 09:55:39 PM
What is a reasonable reaction to your attitude / posts? John Iacoletti reacts reasonably to your interminable, disingenuous onslaught.
Wish list
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=rJkflfQWDHg

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 18, 2019, 11:21:26 AM
Best quality I could find and it's imo it's too hard to say.
https://youtu.be/xnhKsIVCd00?t=40 (https://youtu.be/xnhKsIVCd00?t=40)
I see a slim man anyway, sleeve or no so wth am I doing?
Anyone have link to Robin's original DVD frames folder that he uploaded?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 18, 2019, 01:55:28 PM
Thumb1:

And no reason even to think "Shelley" is white...

My money for "Lovelady" is on Mr D. Arce!

More skilled researchers would know that he is forced to be white because his duck ass has been forensically and perfectly matched by Larsen, who then deleted his proof to make me look bad. Because I am the world?s expert on duck?s asses.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 19, 2019, 12:10:40 PM
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Enhancedchris.gif)

Yes
--------------let's pick the bits in this image we like and brighten them up so until no one notices the bits we don't like!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 19, 2019, 09:36:35 PM
How interesting Walt, you now have the unique opportunity to be the first person without an obvious agenda to explain exactly what it is about this person that makes you think it's a woman, something I might add that even LTroller would not do.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 20, 2019, 01:10:59 AM
One cannot look at any of the images of Prayer Man and say with any degree of certainty that it is a woman.  There are only two things that we can say for sure. The person is short in stature and the person is wide. Well, with those two things in mind, we can also say that it's not Lee Harvey Oswald. Not that we didn't know that already.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 20, 2019, 05:24:36 AM
One cannot look at any of the images of Prayer Man and say with any degree of certainty that it is a woman.  There are only two things that we can say for sure. The person is short in stature and the person is wide. Well, with those two things in mind, we can also say that it's not Lee Harvey Oswald. Not that we didn't know that already.

No, we don?t know that already.

But how can we say for certain that the person is wide? How wide?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 20, 2019, 02:07:39 PM
How interesting Walt, you now have the unique opportunity to be the first person without an obvious agenda to explain exactly what it is about this person that makes you think it's a woman, something I might add that even LTroller would not do.

That's a tough question.... The photo isn't clear enough to be specific....  The image just seems to be a female....and I would say a middle aged female...

The stance seems to be that of a female....and she appears to be wearing a long dark colored rain coat  which falls away from her hands as she holds them up in front of her ( after just taking a picture with the camera in her hand )   

I certainly can't accept the idea that the person is Lee Oswald.....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 20, 2019, 05:01:14 PM
Thanks Walt that's a straightforward answer, in the eye of the beholder and all that, that's all I have also, not really something anyone can argue with imo.
Thanks Tim too, all I could request is to take a look at Alan's reversed Darnell frame and tell us you can't imagine PM on the top step.  If he/she was, then the height has to be revised.  The width could be a baggy shirt aaaaaand the face yes, could still be someone else and an amazing waste of time.

I also understand why people think it's Stanton in theory but just not when based mainly on the less than trustworthy visual blow-ups.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on April 20, 2019, 05:56:26 PM
"Prayer Man"  appears to be a woman to me.....    It most certainly does NOT look like Lee Oswald.
Mr Cakebread, FYI, I remain convinced that PrayerPersonImage represents a female, and most likely SarahDeanStanton, who was then employed at the TSBD Bldg.

In DarnellFilm, she appears to me to be looking slightly to her right as if responding to GloriaCalveryImage, who has arrived along with two companions, and has announced what she/they had just witnessed.

And, to me PPI has never looked like LeeOswald. ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 20, 2019, 06:55:28 PM
Slender white male, shirt not tucked into pants, sleeves rolled up, with receding dark hair, standing one step down?

Check!  Thumb1:

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

And here-------------to refresh our tired eyes--------------it is horizontally flipped!

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

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 20, 2019, 07:05:45 PM
Also, if you "can't accept the idea that the person is Lee Oswald", just remember, neither did multiple eyewitnesses/co-workers on the landing/stairs at the time, nor did they ever indicate accepting said idea!  :-\

Mr Oswald certainly indicated accepting such an idea!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/yIvF6og.jpg)

The scamp obviously foresaw the Prayer Man controversy that would erupt a half century later, and decided to mess with our heads for the fun of it!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 21, 2019, 02:18:20 AM
Mr Oswald certainly indicated accepting such an idea!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/yIvF6og.jpg)

The scamp obviously foresaw the Prayer Man controversy that would erupt a half century later, and decided to mess with our heads for the fun of it!

The scamp obviously foresaw the Prayer Man controversy that would erupt a half century later, and decided to mess with our heads for the fun of it!

How utterly ludicrous!!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on April 21, 2019, 04:30:50 PM
Mr Oswald certainly indicated accepting such an idea!  Thumb1:

(https://i.imgur.com/yIvF6og.jpg)

The scamp obviously foresaw the Prayer Man controversy that would erupt a half century later, and decided to mess with our heads for the fun of it!

The scamp obviously foresaw the Prayer Man controversy that would erupt a half century later, and decided to mess with our heads for the fun of it!

How utterly ludicrous!!
???Surely it is not being claimed that the hand written notes were written by the hand of LeeHarveyOswald. There is also not any indication of the said notes being notorized. And, I have to wonder, as I wander, exactly when were the said notes written? Also, I do not see, as claimed, anything in said notes claiming that LeeHarveyOswald was on the landing, on the west side of the small landing, during the shooting and/or portal area filming.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 21, 2019, 05:56:38 PM
???Surely it is not being claimed that the hand written notes were written by the hand of LeeHarveyOswald. There is also not any indication of the said notes being notorized. And, I have to wonder, as I wander, exactly when were the said notes written? Also, I do not see, as claimed, anything in said notes claiming that LeeHarveyOswald was on the landing, on the west side of the small landing, during the shooting and/or portal area filming.


I believe the notes are those that were scribbled by FBI agent James Bookhout during the second interrogation of Lee Oswald....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 21, 2019, 07:20:52 PM
???Surely it is not being claimed that the hand written notes were written by the hand of LeeHarveyOswald.


I believe the notes are those that were scribbled by FBI agent James Bookhout during the second interrogation of Lee Oswald....

God grant us patience!  ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 22, 2019, 02:16:22 AM
God grant us patience!  ::)

Alan, how long are you going to keep milking the curtain rod story?.....  It's very obvious that the authorities were playing "fool the pissants" and creating forged documents .     Do you really think you can go beyond that fact?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 22, 2019, 06:05:00 AM
FWIW, Mr Cakebread, and this is not intended to be a debate, my take is that PrayerPersonImage is holding in their right hand, with assistance from the left hand, and drinking from, a cup that contains either a beverage, or possibly soup. After all, it was lunchtime. In any event, wearing a long coat, and with a small purse/handbag attached/strapped to the left forearm.

Also, if you "can't accept the idea that the person is Lee Oswald", just remember, neither did multiple eyewitnesses/co-workers on the landing/stairs at the time, nor did they ever indicate accepting said idea! 

Hey brains, like it or not that's exactly what the discussion forum accommodates, debate.  That would include interacting with your "opposition" in a meaningful way, by answering their tricky questions for one, instead of whatever it is you think you are doing, I have no idea, it all seems very alien to me.

Your "take" isn't even yours, it didn't come from you, you certainly didn't create the stabilized gif that led to that observation and you weren't the first to observe it or comment on it.  "... a beverage, or possibly soup." you say, even that's not original, you're just repeating the same crap others have already wondered about.

"wearing a long coat, and with a small purse/handbag attached/strapped to the left forearm".
'That's not #PM, that's Scarflady in Hughes and something else that others claimed to see before you on the Wiegman troll, blowup.
How about telling us why you'd trust that eyesore over the Darnell frames anyway, especially since you're already on record in this thread claiming you(iirc) "...didn't trust these "enhancements""?

"Also, if you "can't accept the idea that the person is Lee Oswald", just remember, neither did multiple eyewitnesses/co-workers on the landing/stairs at the time, nor did they ever indicate accepting said idea! "

No one was asked, "could LHO have come out late and stood on the top step behind you while you were watching the parade approach from Houston?".  I mean, it's fine if you don't believe it, just bring some game, make an effort at least, instead of this lame junk you keep repeating exactly like a troll would do.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 22, 2019, 06:28:29 AM
Mr Cakebread, FYI, I remain convinced that PrayerPersonImage represents a female, and most likely SarahDeanStanton, who was then employed at the TSBD Bldg.

In DarnellFilm, she appears to me to be looking slightly to her right as if responding to GloriaCalveryImage, who as arriving along with two companions, and has announced what she/they had just witnessed.

And, to me PPI has never looked like LeeOswald.

"Convinced"?  That's more or less just a childish reaction to the "PM IS UNDOUBTABLY LHO" gang.  I thought we(other than BD) were looking something a little more substantive than that? 

You can see him looking to his right toward Calvery you say, well that's original at least but it's a shame you can't make anyone else see it or, it seems to me, have you ever tried or appear to want to.

Never looked like LHO? In Darnell? That's just ridiculously stupid and you know it. We have no facial features on PM in that footage as it stands.  Have you ever seen an image of LHO without facial features?  Would you like to see one?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 22, 2019, 06:46:07 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/YRJZMwE.jpg)

The Wiegman frame that appears to show something BWF in the same position he's in in Darnell, not sure what BD sees in what he posted.

(https://i.redd.it/5ejola621c621.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 22, 2019, 11:25:37 AM
No one was asked, "could LHO have come out late and stood on the top step behind you while you were watching the parade approach from Houston?".

One exception! Mr Billy Lovelady was asked just this by the HSCA interviewer and admitted that yes, it was possible.

Quote
I mean, it's fine if you don't believe it, just bring some game, make an effort at least, instead of this lame junk you keep repeating exactly like a troll would do.

He never debates, Mr Pollard, just repeats... and repeats... and repeats... Odd fellow  ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 22, 2019, 04:00:21 PM
One exception! Mr Billy Lovelady was asked just this by the HSCA interviewer and admitted that yes, it was possible.

He never debates, Mr Pollard, just repeats... and repeats... and repeats... Odd fellow  ::)

No one was asked, "could LHO have come out late and stood on the top step behind you while you were watching the parade approach from Houston?".


One exception! Mr Billy Lovelady was asked just this by the HSCA interviewer and admitted that yes, it was possible.

Sure it 's possible....   But the person in question ....Lee Oswald ... Said NOTHING about going to the front steps and watching the approaching parade....Lee said that he was in the Domino room when the Parade passed by.....He said nothing about being on the steps....


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 22, 2019, 05:00:11 PM
^Ultimately,  "not as far as we know" Walt and if one tries hard enough, I'm sure we could all think of a reason why he may have kept that lil' detail to himself(most of us CT's anyway), just don't ask me.  Two Oswaldskis!?  Bwian?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 22, 2019, 05:38:43 PM
Lee Oswald ... Said NOTHING about going to the front steps and watching the approaching parade....

What are you babbling on about?  ::)

(https://i.imgur.com/yIvF6og.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on April 22, 2019, 11:18:35 PM
What are you babbling on about?  ::)

(https://i.imgur.com/yIvF6og.jpg)


Here is my alternative to explain Will Fritz scribbles converted to notes later, implying Oswald had lunch with Harold Norman and James Jarman, which Fritz chose to "remember" but at the same time Fritz "forgets" about Oswald having stated anything about standing outside looking at the parade:.

 Oswalds statement could have actually been:: "I was eating my lunch in the Domino room after having gone up to get a coke from 2nd floor, and I saw Norman and Jarman return, maybe around 12:25 and I heard them talking that the JFK limo was nearing the plaza. That is when I decided to go outside at the front entrance, to watch the parade.

Does anyone think that Will Fritz, under pressure from  FBI Hoover and LBJ to make sure Oswald "is their man", would DARE record such statement in full. detail, let alone have that recorded on tape or even recorded by official presence of attorney or a stenographer? 

 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 22, 2019, 11:51:45 PM
Can't really speak for Walt but I've seen that at least five times and that vital detail still never stuck in my thick head.

...
Does anyone think that Will Fritz, under pressure from  FBI Hoover and LBJ to make sure Oswald "is their man", would DARE record such statement in full. detail, let alone have that recorded on tape or even recorded by official presence of attorney or a stenographer?

Even without the added pressure of this case, no way in hell would Fritz help any guilty man by repeating what he said in his own defence.  His job to hang guys like this was hard enough already IMHO.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on April 23, 2019, 12:00:58 AM

Here is my alternative to explain Will Fritz scribbles converted to notes later, implying Oswald had lunch with Harold Norman and James Jarman, which Fritz chose to "remember" but at the same time Fritz "forgets" about Oswald having stated anything about standing outside looking at the parade:.

 Oswalds statement could have actually been:: "I was eating my lunch in the Domino room after having gone up to get a coke from 2nd floor, and I saw Norman and Jarman return, maybe around 12:25 and I heard them talking that the JFK limo was nearing the plaza. That is when I decided to go outside at the front entrance, to watch the parade.

Does anyone think that Will Fritz, under pressure from  FBI Hoover and LBJ to make sure Oswald "is their man", would DARE record such statement in full. detail, let alone have that recorded on tape or even recorded by official presence of attorney or a stenographer?

Some presenters set out to satisfy others while anticipating reasonable, well supported arguments are required if others are reasonably expected to be satisfied.
IOW, some presenters are devoted to pursuit of what is reasonable to consider resolveable. Resolve, as used in this discussion, is to SETTLE a matter.
A matter is settled, ending discussion, on the merits, the strength of the proof. Discernment is the ability to avoid unreasonable pursuits. Such pursuits include
interminable discussion of unresolveable claims. Consistent testimony of say.... twenty witnesses....all supporting the testimony of each other, eighteen of
twenty witnesses now dead, is unimpeachable testimony....UNLESS YOU ARE SINCERELY ONLY ATTEMPTING TO SATISFY YOURSELF of the merits of your claims.

Some presenters set out to satisfy only themselves or expect somehow to resolve the obviously unresolveable. What else could explain the absurdity of
the repeated futile exercises to impeach the consistent testimony of literally dozens of witnesses, relying partly on Fritz "notes" impossible to confirm the
provenance of partly because the donor of the notes was anonymous, aggravated by the fact Fritz testified he kept no notes in real time and later jotted on
paper some of his recollections of interrogating Oswald. USPO Inspector Harry Holmes confirmed to author Sneed that neither he or Fritz kept interrogation
notes because they wanted to deprive anticipated defense counsel inquiry as to the nature of the questions investigators put to the suspect, the accused defense
counsel are defending.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 23, 2019, 12:09:48 AM
What are you babbling on about?  ::)

(https://i.imgur.com/yIvF6og.jpg)

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

According to these scribbled notes, Lee went to the front of the TSBD AFTER the encounter with Baker and Truly in the second floor lunchroom, where he had gone to buy a Coca Cola.   The parade was NOT approaching the TSBD down Houston at about 12 :33.....  The Parade was no longer a parade at 12:33 ....
So there would have been no parade for Lee to have watched.

Incidentally I believe Mr Bookhout was a bit confused about what Lee was saying.....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on April 23, 2019, 12:44:49 AM
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

According to these scribbled notes, Lee went to the front of the TSBD AFTER the encounter with Baker and Truly in the second floor lunchroom, where he had gone to buy a Coca Cola.   The parade was NOT approaching the TSBD down Houston at about 12 :33.....  The Parade was no longer a parade at 12:33 ....
So there would have been no parade for Lee to have watched.

Incidentally I believe Mr Bookhout was a bit confused about what Lee was saying.....



I was refering to Will Fritz notes. Yes I read the Hosty/Hasty note as written, but it does not preclude that Oswald could have been in the Domino room at 12:25, saw Norman, Jarman come in the back door, hearing a few words like "Its almost here, lets hurry up or we might miss it", and then Oswald took his coke he had already earlier gotten from the 2nd floor lunchroom around 12:15, when he was seen by Carolyn Arnold, and Oswald then went acrros the 1st floor, not seen by Piper or Troy West, because they had moved to watch out one of the front windows, and exited out the front door at about 12:28 just behind BW.Frazier.

The Front door has hinge on the leftside as seen from inside, so the door swing counter clockwise, therefore making it possilbe that someone could have exited by opening the door just a mere 1.5 ft and slip out without anyone in front of that door, noticing such exit. Then the immediate right hand corner, where Prayer person is standing, is the logical place to have gone.


I say this just in case there is something more found in the future to explain the 5'3" height of prayerperson, such as stool from the storage room or some other item and thus will be some logical construction for how Oswald eventually went from 2nd floor at 12:15, to Domino rooom at 12:25, and then to the outisde where prayerpersoon is, without being noticed by anyone seeing him.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on April 23, 2019, 12:55:23 AM
Some presenters set out to satisfy others while anticipating reasonable, well supported arguments are required if others are reasonably expected to be satisfied.
IOW, some presenters are devoted to pursuit of what is reasonable to consider resolveable. Resolve, as used in this discussion, is to SETTLE a matter.
A matter is settled, ending discussion, on the merits, the strength of the proof. Discernment is the ability to avoid unreasonable pursuits. Such pursuits include
interminable discussion of unresolveable claims. Consistent testimony of say.... twenty witnesses....all supporting the testimony of each other, eighteen of
twenty witnesses now dead, is unimpeachable testimony....UNLESS YOU ARE SINCERELY ONLY ATTEMPTING TO SATISFY YOURSELF of the merits of your claims.

Some presenters set out to satisfy only themselves or expect somehow to resolve the obviously unresolveable. What else could explain the absurdity of
the repeated futile exercises to impeach the consistent testimony of literally dozens of witnesses, relying partly on Fritz "notes" impossible to confirm the
provenance of partly because the donor of the notes was anonymous, aggravated by the fact Fritz testified he kept no notes in real time and later jotted on
paper some of his recollections of interrogating Oswald. USPO Inspector Harry Holmes confirmed to author Sneed that neither he or Fritz kept interrogation
notes because they wanted to deprive anticipated defense counsel inquiry as to the nature of the questions investigators put to the suspect, the accused defense
counsel are defending.


Thank you, Mr.Scully    Thumb1:  Not sure  myself,  exactly if ANYTHING in this JFK case, even the so called "established facts" are beyond questioning, reexamining., when documents are found such as the one Mr. Alan Ford has presented, which suggest an inexplicable absence of a signature on a supposed "copy" as well as changing dates and dates which do not match with Mrs Paines WC testimony taken on March 23rd 1963.



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 23, 2019, 11:27:07 AM


I was refering to Will Fritz notes. Yes I read the Hosty/Hasty note as written, but it does not preclude that Oswald could have been in the Domino room at 12:25, saw Norman, Jarman come in the back door, hearing a few words like "Its almost here, lets hurry up or we might miss it", and then Oswald took his coke he had already earlier gotten from the 2nd floor lunchroom around 12:15, when he was seen by Carolyn Arnold, and Oswald then went acrros the 1st floor, not seen by Piper or Troy West, because they had moved to watch out one of the front windows, and exited out the front door at about 12:28 just behind BW.Frazier.

 Thumb1:

The Hosty note couldn't be clearer
--------------bought coke in 2nd fl lunchroom before motorcade
--------------went down to 1st fl for lunch
--------------"Then went outside to watch P. parade"

I think you may be on to something when you link the timing of Mr Oswald's move to the front door with Messrs Norman & Jarman's entry into the building shortly before the motorcade!

Quote
The Front door has hinge on the leftside as seen from inside, so the door swing counter clockwise, therefore making it possilbe that someone could have exited by opening the door just a mere 1.5 ft and slip out without anyone in front of that door, noticing such exit. Then the immediate right hand corner, where Prayer person is standing, is the logical place to have gone.

Spot on!

Quote
I say this just in case there is something more found in the future to explain the 5'3" height of prayerperson, such as stool from the storage room or some other item and thus will be some logical construction for how Oswald eventually went from 2nd floor at 12:15, to Domino rooom at 12:25, and then to the outisde where prayerpersoon is, without being noticed by anyone seeing him.

No need to explain Prayer Man's alleged short stature
------------------he's one step down from the landing!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on April 25, 2019, 08:53:32 AM
All work and no play...
Just keep telling yourself everything's okay.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on April 25, 2019, 04:56:20 PM
Thumb1:

The Hosty note couldn't be clearer
--------------bought coke in 2nd fl lunchroom before motorcade
--------------went down to 1st fl for lunch
--------------"Then went outside to watch P. parade"

I think you may be on to something when you link the timing of Mr Oswald's move to the front door with Messrs Norman & Jarman's entry into the building shortly before the motorcade!

Spot on!

No need to explain Prayer Man's alleged short stature
------------------he's one step down from the landing!

 Thumb1:


Alan, I think many of us are not quite convinced of prayerperson having stood one step down. Not ruiling it out entirely for my part, because of the Dr.Pepper bottle that was found coincidentally on that side of the steps and right about near where one who was prayerperson could have placed such.

And the Dr.Pepper bottle of 63 has that large WHITE oval shaped logo on the bottle, and if prayerperson is holding such bottle near the top, than that white logo could be a possible reason for the white splotch near the mouth as the hand is raised.

Of course, it would take some experiment with someone with a 63 Dr.Pepper bottle to stand at that location and be filmed with the exact same type camera being used by Darnell and Couch, in the month of Nov 22nd at about 12:31-12:34,  to have any way of providing any proof or probability my speculation is correct.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 25, 2019, 06:33:33 PM

Alan, I think many of us are not quite convinced of prayerperson having stood one step down. Not ruiling it out entirely for my part, because of the Dr.Pepper bottle that was found coincidentally on that side of the steps and right about near where one who was prayerperson could have placed such.

And the Dr.Pepper bottle of 63 has that large WHITE oval shaped logo on the bottle, and if prayerperson is holding such bottle near the top, than that white logo could be a possible reason for the white splotch near the mouth as the hand is raised.

Of course, it would take some experiment with someone with a 63 Dr.Pepper bottle to stand at that location and be filmed with the exact same type camera being used by Darnell and Couch, in the month of Nov 22nd at about 12:31-12:34,  to have any way of providing any proof or probability my speculation is correct.

Zeon, Have you ever seen any adult hold a soda bottle by the neck while drinking from the bottle?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 25, 2019, 07:14:48 PM
Zeon, Have you ever seen any adult hold a soda bottle by the neck while drinking from the bottle?

Why would he have to have been holding the neck, Walt?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 25, 2019, 08:04:33 PM
Why would he have to have been holding the neck, Walt?

I can't imagine how the Dr pepper Logo would have been visible if the Person ( woman) was drinking from a Dr pepper bottle at the time....An idea that doesn't make a lot of sense....The person was there to view the parade .....so it's highly unlikely that she was drinking a soda ....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Anthony Clayden on April 25, 2019, 10:29:27 PM
Zeon, Have you ever seen any adult hold a soda bottle by the neck while drinking from the bottle?

Yes I often have (not to say I think it is bottle of soft drink)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 26, 2019, 12:27:17 AM

Alan, I think many of us are not quite convinced of prayerperson having stood one step down. Not ruiling it out entirely for my part, because of the Dr.Pepper bottle that was found coincidentally on that side of the steps and right about near where one who was prayerperson could have placed such.

And the Dr.Pepper bottle of 63 has that large WHITE oval shaped logo on the bottle, and if prayerperson is holding such bottle near the top, than that white logo could be a possible reason for the white splotch near the mouth as the hand is raised.

Of course, it would take some experiment with someone with a 63 Dr.Pepper bottle to stand at that location and be filmed with the exact same type camera being used by Darnell and Couch, in the month of Nov 22nd at about 12:31-12:34,  to have any way of providing any proof or probability my speculation is correct.


Couldn't that bottle of pop have been Billy Lovelady's?

Wasn't he alleged to have been sitting on the steps, eating his lunch?

.......


Joseph Ball: You ate your lunch on the steps?

Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir.

Joseph Ball: Who was with you?

Billy Lovelady: Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton....

Joseph Ball: Were you there when the President's motorcade went by?

Billy Lovelady: Right.

Joseph Ball: Did you hear anything?

Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir: sure did.

Joseph Ball: What did you hear?

Billy Lovelady: I thought it was firecrackers or somebody celebrating the arrival of the President. It didn't occur to me at first what had happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot.

Joseph Ball: Who was this girl?

Billy Lovelady: Gloria Calvary...


.......


Harold Norman, on who else was out front when he and "Junior" Jarman went outside: "Well, I believe Billy Lovelady, I think. He was sitting on the steps there."

.......


-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 26, 2019, 12:44:04 AM
Yes I often have (not to say I think it is bottle of soft drink)

Yes, I've seen wino's laying down holding their bottle by the neck.... But This woman was standing....
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 26, 2019, 02:58:26 AM
Yes, I've seen wino's laying down holding their bottle by the neck.... But This woman was standing....

*winos
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on April 26, 2019, 02:59:26 AM

Couldn't that bottle of pop have been Billy Lovelady's?

Wasn't he alleged to have been sitting on the steps, eating his lunch?

.......


Joseph Ball: You ate your lunch on the steps?

Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir.

Joseph Ball: Who was with you?

Billy Lovelady: Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton....

Joseph Ball: Were you there when the President's motorcade went by?

Billy Lovelady: Right.

Joseph Ball: Did you hear anything?

Billy Lovelady: Yes, sir: sure did.

Joseph Ball: What did you hear?

Billy Lovelady: I thought it was firecrackers or somebody celebrating the arrival of the President. It didn't occur to me at first what had happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot.

Joseph Ball: Who was this girl?

Billy Lovelady: Gloria Calvary...


.......


Harold Norman, on who else was out front when he and "Junior" Jarman went outside: "Well, I believe Billy Lovelady, I think. He was sitting on the steps there."

.......


-- MWT   ;)

Mr. BALL - What did you do after you went down and washed up; what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I went over and got my lunch and went upstairs and got a coke and come on back down.
Mr. BALL - Upstairs on what floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.
Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.


Low probability the Dr. Pepper bottle belonged to Billy Lovelady:

A. Billy Lovelady statement is, on the record, as "coke" and from "upstairs" therefore, NOT from the Dr.Pepper machine which was on first floor, right by the rear staircase.

B. Oswald made NO statement, on record, of having bought a coke. Only Will Fritz scribbles of what Oswald MAY have said, which could be imcomplete or purposely omitting some words or phrases, expecially "I went out to the front to watch the parade" which apparently Hostys ears heard. but Will Fritz forgot or did not hear.

C. Oswald favorite drink was Dr. Pepper.  Vincent Bugliosi's own book "Reclaiming History" even admits that. Billy Lovelady, however, There are no WC statements made from other employees or Lovelady himself,  that indicate that Billy Loveladys favorite drink was Dr.Pepper.

D. It has NOT BEEN PROVED that prayer person is a woman. Exaggerated images from computer enlargements do not prove anything other than images can be distorted far beyond the orignal fuzzy image.


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 26, 2019, 03:23:28 AM
Mr. BALL - What did you do after you went down and washed up; what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I went over and got my lunch and went upstairs and got a coke and come on back down.
Mr. BALL - Upstairs on what floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.
Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.


Low probability the Dr. Pepper bottle belonged to Billy Lovelady:

A. Billy Lovelady statement is, on the record, as "coke" and from "upstairs" therefore, NOT from the Dr.Pepper machine which was on first floor, right by the rear staircase.

B. Oswald made NO statement, on record, of having bought a coke. Only Will Fritz scribbles of what Oswald MAY have said, which could be imcomplete or purposely omitting some words or phrases, expecially "I went out to the front to watch the parade" which apparently Hostys ears heard. but Will Fritz forgot or did not hear.

C. Oswald favorite drink was Dr. Pepper.  Vincent Bugliosi's own book "Reclaiming History" even admits that. Billy Lovelady, however, There are no WC statements made from other employees or Lovelady himself,  that indicate that Billy Loveladys favorite drink was Dr.Pepper.

D. It has NOT BEEN PROVED that prayer person is a woman. Exaggerated images from computer enlargements do not prove anything other than images can be distorted far beyond the orignal fuzzy image.

As Larry Hancock pointed out on the EF a few years ago, back-in-the-day, Southerners often referred to any soft drink as a "coke" or a "coke-cola".

Was it ever determined what kind of soft drink Inspector of Police, Herbert J. Sawyer, was drinking on the steps after the assassination?

Before or during the motorcade, was Carl Jones eating his lunch or drinking a "coke-cola" while sitting on the steps?

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on April 26, 2019, 12:14:36 PM
As Larry Hancock pointed out on the EF a few years ago, back-in-the-day, Southerners often referred to any soft drink as a "coke" or a "coke-cola".

Was it ever determined what kind of soft drink Inspector of Police, Herbert J. Sawyer, was drinking on the steps after the assassination?

Before or during the motorcade, was Carl Jones eating his lunch or drinking a "coke-cola" while sitting on the steps?

-- MWT  ;)

Gosh...... I miss Albert.  I miss even more the images he should have posted along with his theories.  I wonder what he's a-gonna do about Mary Pinchot?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 26, 2019, 02:17:36 PM
Mr. BALL - What did you do after you went down and washed up; what did you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I went over and got my lunch and went upstairs and got a coke and come on back down.
Mr. BALL - Upstairs on what floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.
Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.


Low probability the Dr. Pepper bottle belonged to Billy Lovelady:

A. Billy Lovelady statement is, on the record, as "coke" and from "upstairs" therefore, NOT from the Dr.Pepper machine which was on first floor, right by the rear staircase.

B. Oswald made NO statement, on record, of having bought a coke. Only Will Fritz scribbles of what Oswald MAY have said, which could be imcomplete or purposely omitting some words or phrases, expecially "I went out to the front to watch the parade" which apparently Hostys ears heard. but Will Fritz forgot or did not hear.

C. Oswald favorite drink was Dr. Pepper.  Vincent Bugliosi's own book "Reclaiming History" even admits that. Billy Lovelady, however, There are no WC statements made from other employees or Lovelady himself,  that indicate that Billy Loveladys favorite drink was Dr.Pepper.

D. It has NOT BEEN PROVED that prayer person is a woman. Exaggerated images from computer enlargements do not prove anything other than images can be distorted far beyond the orignal fuzzy image.

Oswald favorite drink was Dr. Pepper.  Vincent Bugliosi's own book "Reclaiming History" even admits that.

Even if it's true that Lee Oswald's favorite soda was Dr Pepper.....   That certainly doesn't mean that he drank no other beverage.     And citing Bugliosi's book is akin to citing Alice in Wonderland.....   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 26, 2019, 08:46:30 PM
No need----------since 19 February 2019-----------to speculate about what Mr Oswald had to drink!:

(https://i.imgur.com/XQFA3PU.jpg)

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 26, 2019, 09:36:19 PM
No need----------since 19 February 2019-----------to speculate about what Mr Oswald had to drink!:

(https://i.imgur.com/XQFA3PU.jpg)

 Thumb1:

According to these notes....Lee returned to the first floor after buying a coke ( that would have been AFTER the Baker Truly encounter and after 12:33 )  He then ate his lunch in the domino room ( let's allow him just 5 minutes to gulp down his lunch) that makes it about 12:38 that he went outside to watch a non existent parade....And wasn't this the time that he was allegedly boarding Mc Watter's bus??

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 26, 2019, 10:15:48 PM
According to these notes....Lee returned to the first floor after buying a coke ( that would have been AFTER the Baker Truly encounter and after 12:33 )

What nonsense!

Why, Mr Cakebread, when you read the words "Then went outside to watch P. parade", do you feel the need to replace its perfectly plain meaning with a tortured meaning of your own invention?

Listen to what Mr Oswald is telling us through Agent Hosty's notes: I was out front when the President passed.

This all-important claim was suppressed. Why on earth would you not celebrate the fact that it is suppressed no more, instead of throwing illogical assertions at it?

Bizarre  ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on April 27, 2019, 12:22:27 AM
Gosh...... I miss Albert.  I miss even more the images he should have posted along with his theories.  I wonder what he's a-gonna do about Mary Pinchot?

Speaking of Culto, he pointed out this, from Peter Janney's 2004, Lost Light Manuscript.:
(http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/823151e7da892ace2.jpg)

No instruction has been received to retrieve the entity recently removed from the island.

Is this good news or bad? I am half expecting to soon read posts by a new member of this forum named Ralph Yates.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on April 27, 2019, 03:04:41 AM

The following 3D red/cyan composite was created from panning frames taken a microsecond apart meaning that the two frames are separated horizontally and can be combined stereoscopically to create depth, in the image below the amount of red blue separation increases as the objects get closer to the camera. Now assuming that Prayer Person didn't substantially move in that 1/10 of a second, we can center on PP and see that he/she is the furthest away object and what can also be seen on the wall beside PP is PP's soft shadow created by the sunlight reflecting off all the people and is further evidence of PP's position on the top landing.

(https://i.postimg.cc/vZCxT7F7/3d-prayerman.jpg)

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1342/5013/products/2977239_3_grande.jpg?v=1472084409)

(https://i.postimg.cc/qvhBgzT2/pm1-zpsorhj1xpm-1.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 27, 2019, 09:47:48 AM
"Assuming that Prayer Person didn't substantially move in that 1/10 of a second, we can center on PP and see that he/she is the furthest away object and what can also be seen on the wall beside PP is PP's soft shadow created by the sunlight reflecting off all the people and is further evidence of PP's position on the top landing."

(https://i.postimg.cc/vZCxT7F7/3d-prayerman.jpg)

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1342/5013/products/2977239_3_grande.jpg?v=1472084409)

(https://i.postimg.cc/qvhBgzT2/pm1-zpsorhj1xpm-1.gif)
.......

John,

Very interesting work, especially regarding PP's shadow.

1) Does this mean Prayer Person wasn't standing awkwardly for thirty seconds or so with one foot on the landing, and the other foot on the top step?

2) If Prayer Person was the farthest person from Darnell's camera, and if Frazier was 6' 1.5" tall, what would you judge PP's height to be closer to --  Sarah Stanton's 5' 4", or Oswald's 5' 9.5"?

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 27, 2019, 03:44:46 PM
What nonsense!

Why, Mr Cakebread, when you read the words "Then went outside to watch P. parade", do you feel the need to replace its perfectly plain meaning with a tortured meaning of your own invention?

Listen to what Mr Oswald is telling us through Agent Hosty's notes: I was out front when the President passed.

This all-important claim was suppressed. Why on earth would you not celebrate the fact that it is suppressed no more, instead of throwing illogical assertions at it?

Bizarre  ::)

Listen to what Mr Oswald is telling us through Agent Hosty's notes: I was out front when the President passed.

You're reading Hosty's interpretation  of what he thought Lee said.     If those notes were written by Lee Oswald THEN I might look at it differently.

This may be too simple for you because you seem to enjoy making things complicated.....BUT....Even if Lee did tell the interrogators that he went outside to watch the parade AFTER going to the second floor to buy a Coca Cola and AFTER he met Roy Truly and Marrion Baker there in that second floor lunchroom,and AFTER he returned to the Domino room and AFTER he finished his lunch he THEN went outside to watch the parade not knowing that the pared no longer existed.

You simply are desperately trying to put Lee outside in front of the TSBD as the Parade was passing by and WHILE the shots were being fired.....

Question...WHAT IS THE ONE THING THAT ALL SPECTATORS REPORTED?  ...answer:...    Every last one of the spectators reported hearing gun shots.....Did Lee Oswald EVER say anything about hearing gunshots?     ....Answer ....NO he did not.....  WHY?   Because he was in a place in which the gunshots could not be heard....a place like the second Floor lunchroom ...or the stair well between floors.


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 27, 2019, 03:49:53 PM
This may be too simple for you because you seem to enjoy making things complicated.....BUT....Even if Lee did tell the interrogators that he went outside to watch the parade AFTER going to the second floor to buy a Coca Cola and AFTER he met Roy Truly and Marrion Baker there in that second floor lunchroom [...]

The encounter between Mr Oswald and Officer Baker in the second-floor lunchroom just after the assassination never happened, Mr Cakebread!

It was invented on the night of 11/22/63 as a way of taking Mr Oswald away from the front entrance for the shooting.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 27, 2019, 05:13:21 PM
The encounter between Mr Oswald and Officer Baker in the second-floor lunchroom just after the assassination never happened, Mr Cakebread!

It was invented on the night of 11/22/63 as a way of taking Mr Oswald away from the front entrance for the shooting.

 Thumb1:

As I said, Alan....You're FOS!....   The encounter in the second floor lunchroom definitely DID happen...... The affidavit of Baker  that was taken BEFORE 5:00 pm  1/22/63 confirms that Baker saw Lee in the second floor lunchroom about 75 seconds after the shooting....

Alan, I'm losing respect for your opinions.....  You're a good researcher and have discovered some very interesting and revealing information.....But this outrageous idea that Baker and Truly never encountered Lee Oswald in the second floor lunchroom is  simply bizarre .....   If the encounter never happened as you purpose.....Then why the hell would the "investigators" spend so much time and effort to attempt to verify and document that Lee could have traveled from the sixth floor to the lunchroom in a mere 75 seconds????   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on April 27, 2019, 08:37:42 PM
The affidavit of Baker  that was taken BEFORE 5:00 pm  1/22/63 confirms that Baker saw Lee in the second floor lunchroom about 75 seconds after the shooting....

OMG, really? A same-day affidavit from Officer Baker confirming the lunchroom encounter? I didn't know about this... how embarrassing!

What exactly does it say?

 :-[
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 27, 2019, 08:50:36 PM
OMG, really? A same-day affidavit from Officer Baker confirming the lunchroom encounter? I didn't know about this... how embarrassing!

What exactly does it say?

 :-[

I'll be interested to see this as well, Alan.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Steve Logan on April 28, 2019, 04:07:08 PM
Wow, back with a vengeance eh Brian. So basically you're the forum's version of genital warts . :-[
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 28, 2019, 04:27:26 PM
OMG, really? A same-day affidavit from Officer Baker confirming the lunchroom encounter? I didn't know about this... how embarrassing!

What exactly does it say?

 :-[

I'm sorry....I'm in Error.... Baker did NOT say anything about meeting Lee Oswald in the second floor lunchroom in his affidavit for 11/22/63.  However, I believe it was Chief Curry who told reporters that one of his officers had encountered the cold blooded, arch villain Lee Harrrrrrvey Osssssswald   Booooo! Hisss! just seconds after he had murdered the President.  And he was calmly drinking a Coca Cola in the lunchroom.....when the officer saw him.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on April 28, 2019, 10:44:38 PM
If Sarah Staunton is prayer person, why didn't she mention anything about a police officer having to run almost right into her on the front step landing?

 Mr Truly, with BAker, they both have to  go past Sarah Staunton , unless Staunton goes in 1st, in the few seconds right as Baker is ascending the front steps, and Baker stopping momentarily perhaps to await Mr Truly joining him before proceeding to open the front door.

But if Staunton went in first, then should not she have remembered seeing a police officer and the boss, Roy Truly, just coming into the lobby right behind her? . How far could Sarah have traveled if she was likely heading 1st to the front passenger elevator, which would be a logical easier option for a heavy person to choose rather than having trek up 18 steps.

Since the TSBD  front entrance door swings outward counterclockwise, and since the flow of persons seen in Darnell/Couch films  is going up the LEFT hand side of the steps, it would seem logical that Baker and Truly would also go up the left side as well. They would have gone right past Sarah Staunton if she remained standing there in the corner.

Who would be less noticeable  in the corner, a large round woman with a purse held up to her mouth or head, whom was well known by fellow employees, or a recently hired 135 lb man with Dr.Pepper bottle in hand, that nobody knew very well, except for BW.Frazier?

If Oswald is prayer person, its more probable that he, being nimble and quick,  might have been able to go in first, and make it to the frront storage room by the front staircase, before Baker and Truly enter the lobby. Then Baker/Truly go past to the 2nd set of glass doors to enter the front office area, and if Oswald came out of the storage room then, its easy to see Baker being surprised by Oswald emerging from storage room.

But Oswald is also probably NOT as noticeable as a 400 lb round woman, so  Oswald unnoticedby Baker/Truly while still standing in the corner. Then if Oswald placed his Dr.Pepper bottle on a step down from that corner part of the landing, he could have entered sometime after Baker/Truly,  around 50 sec posts shots, during the time Baker/Truly are working their way thru the front office area, and the 2nd set of glass doors have been closed.

If so, Oswald could have made it to the 2nd floor lunchroom by abou 85 sec post shots, using the front staircase and outer 2nd lfoor hallway, at a pace of 5ft/sec and taking 15 seconds to ascend the 18 step front staircase.

Sarah Staunton had FBI statement taken, and had plenty of years later to have mentioned something about seeing Baker and Truly, but did not.

Oswald only had one interrogation where his statements were not recorded in detail, nor in presence of reliable source, like an attorney, court stenographer, or recording tape or film, so there is some possibility Oswald may have said something about seeing Baker and Truly ENTER the TSBD front entrance, which such statement  would have of necessity had to be omitted by Will Fritz, otherwise the whole case goes from "cinched" to "improbable".


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 29, 2019, 04:29:38 PM
Does Iacoletti want Prayer Person to be Oswald?

The answer is no. What anybody wants isn?t even relevant.

My personal opinion is that there is insufficient evidence to positively identify prayer person.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on April 29, 2019, 05:37:09 PM
Brian,

Does Iacoletti want Prayer Person to be Oswald?

If so, what evidence, if any, does he have to that effect?

-- MWT   ;)

  I suppose Mr Iacoletti would have that answer, however, if he has seriously disputed the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, I don't recall reading any comments made supporting said serious dispute.
In any event, it continues to be my belief that any claim of 'no evidence' indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing SarahDeanStanton falls short of reality.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 29, 2019, 07:53:23 PM
  I suppose Mr Iacoletti would have that answer, however, if he has seriously disputed the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, I don't recall reading any comments made supporting said serious dispute.
In any event, it continues to be my belief that any claim of 'no evidence' indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing SarahDeanStanton falls short of reality.

Larry,

Iacoletti appears to claim that there's not enough evidence to say Prayer Person is a man, or a woman.

One can only wonder, then, whether or not Mr. Blobs has tried to refute "Prayer Person Is A Man" true-believers on this issue as persistently and vigorously as he has attempted to refute Duncan MacRae and Chris Davidson, et al. ...

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 29, 2019, 09:22:14 PM
Well Thomas, I do believe "sufficient evidence" has been provided that strongly indicates PrayerPersonImage represents a female, and is most likely SarahDeanStanton.

Larry,

Yes, I already "got" that (i.e., that you believe Prayer Person is not only a female, but is probably Sarah Stanton).

But that isn't what I asking.

In so many words, I was rhetorically asking whether or not Iacoletti is truly as agnostic on the Prayer Person issue as he claims to be.

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Anthony Clayden on April 29, 2019, 09:47:39 PM
You do know that there exist such a thing as "photoshoping" of images? Has someone taken a copy of the same frame, followed the same process and independently got the same result? Has the same process been followed on other frames to get the same results?

If not then it is not proven that any image is not just either an accidental outcome of the process used.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 29, 2019, 10:34:12 PM
Well Thomas, I do believe "sufficient evidence" has been provided that strongly indicates PrayerPersonImage represents a female, and is most likely SarahDeanStanton.

That?s nice, but unless you?re willing to specify what that evidence is then your declaration of belief isn?t particularly useful.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on April 30, 2019, 02:03:13 AM
"Assuming that Prayer Person didn't substantially move in that 1/10 of a second, we can center on PP and see that he/she is the furthest away object and what can also be seen on the wall beside PP is PP's soft shadow created by the sunlight reflecting off all the people and is further evidence of PP's position on the top landing."
.......

John,

Very interesting work, especially regarding PP's shadow.

1) Does this mean Prayer Person wasn't standing awkwardly for thirty seconds or so with one foot on the landing, and the other foot on the top step?

2) If Prayer Person was the farthest person from Darnell's camera, and if Frazier was 6' 1.5" tall, what would you judge PP's height to be closer to --  Sarah Stanton's 5' 4", or Oswald's 5' 9.5"?

-- MWT   ;)

Hi Thomas,

1. yes.

2. I made a cg recreation a while back and found PP to be about 5 foot 3.

(https://i.postimg.cc/L684D9zK/PM-five-foot-three-zpsdyfd74jb.jpg)

Quote
Very interesting work, especially regarding PP's shadow.

Yeah, while looking at the 3D PP with red/cyan glasses the shadow really stands out, it's like in the following photo the chair while in a shadow casts a shadow.

(https://i.postimg.cc/s2wVFbPG/shadow-in-shadow-chair.jpg)

So by looking at the intensity and angle of the shadow it appears that PP is close to the wall and further back.

(https://i.postimg.cc/vZCxT7F7/3d-prayerman.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/qvhBgzT2/pm1-zpsorhj1xpm-1.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 30, 2019, 05:42:12 AM
-- MWT  ;)

Learn how the forum software works, Tommy.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on April 30, 2019, 05:48:20 AM
Learn how the forum software works, Tommy.

Nice deflection, "Blobs".

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 30, 2019, 01:36:38 PM
How you expect to be taken seriously -- when you stubbornly refuse to admit that the three people on the Pergola Patio in the Towner Film are not only women, but the same three women who are standing "next to" the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder Film and in Betzner-3 -- is beyond me.

Why are you so incredulous that anyone could possibly not share in your vivid imagination?

Quote
Oh, that's right. Karen Westbrook "identified" her raincoat-and-headscarf-wearing self from behind and 54 years after-the-fact to smilin' 'n noddin' Stephen Fagin.

Yes, that?s right. She was there ? you weren?t. Calvery was her good friend and coworker. You?ve never so much as seen the woman.

Quote
(Did you notice the pained look on her face and her total silence when he took the liberty to point "her" out in the Willis-5 photo, too?)

No, but the vivid imagination strikes again.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on April 30, 2019, 03:28:42 PM
Larry,

Yes, I already "got" that.

But that isn't what I asking.

In so many words, I was rhetorically asking whether or not Mr. Blobs is truly as agnostic on the Prayer Person issue as he claims to be.

-- MWT  ;)

I spose I musta poured my day old coffee from the duh um azz pot yesterday, but I had thought that I had kinda sorta alluded to said question in a recent prior post/reply. But, as mentioned, and as pointed out, any issue agnostic type claim does not seem to appear to be reality based.
 ::)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 30, 2019, 04:57:59 PM
I spose I musta poured my day old coffee from the duh um azz pot yesterday, but I had thought that I had kinda sorta alluded to said question in a recent prior post/reply. But, as mentioned, and as pointed out, any issue agnostic type claim does not seem to appear to be reality based.
 ::)

maybenobodyeveractuallyunderstandswhatthehellyou'retalkingabout
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on May 01, 2019, 09:21:01 PM
If other people can stand with both feet on a single step, so can Prayer Person, especially that person is a 135llb 5'9" hieight man.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on May 02, 2019, 08:27:09 AM
You do know that there exist such a thing as "photoshoping" of images? Has someone taken a copy of the same frame, followed the same process and independently got the same result? Has the same process been followed on other frames to get the same results?


Anyone is welcome to do just that.
And if they so desire, here is a comparison between the originals with the exact same default (good place to start) shadow contrast adjustment for all three, using Photoshop.
(https://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/PM_3.gif)
 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 02, 2019, 04:55:23 PM
We have forensically proven that it's Michael Jackson's face and this will be instantly confirmed by the first photo analysis professional to examine it.  It clearly shows Michael's face and nothing you wrote does anything to disprove it...You can see Michael's lips and even his plastic surgery scars.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwa1.jpg)(https://images.vogue.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/13133917/Senza-titolo-211.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on May 02, 2019, 05:30:52 PM
A little more shadow contrast first, and then a general contrast adjustment and that would be as far as I go:
Afterwards, use the densitometer to find like values in the (image where the white object is larger/more clear and square) face and right arm.
(https://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/PM1.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on May 02, 2019, 07:30:56 PM
I just don't see how in the heck anyone would ever think those blobs are a woman's face. Seriously, Brian.

And seriously, John I, you should know better than to think that's Wacko Jacko up there. I mean, isn't your nickname Blobs?

[wink-wink]
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on May 03, 2019, 02:42:00 AM
?...
Isn't it interesting that you never "saw" the "obvious obese body features" until after you found out that Sarah Stanton was obese?


....

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 03, 2019, 02:51:26 PM
If other people can stand with both feet on a single step, so can Prayer Person, especially that person is a 135llb 5'9" hieight man.

I have yet to recognize any reliable credible provable evidence that PrayerPersonImage is "that person is a 135llb 5'9" hieight man."
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 04, 2019, 12:23:03 AM
Produce these ?recent renovation blueprints? or admit that you made this up.

Sounds a good idea to me.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 04, 2019, 10:25:05 PM
Blobs,

How you expect to be taken seriously -- when you stubbornly refuse to admit that the three people on the Pergola Patio in the Towner Film are not only women, but the same three women who are standing "next to" the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder Film and in Betzner-3 -- is beyond me.

Oh, that's right. Karen Westbrook "identified" her raincoat-and-headscarf-wearing self from behind and 54 years after-the-fact to smilin' 'n noddin' Stephen Fagin.  (Did you notice the pained look on her face and her total silence when he took the liberty to point "her" out in the Willis-5 photo, too?)

Do you really think big, tall, dark-red-haired Gloria Calvery is the same person Westbrook called Gloria Calvert (sic), standing next to "Westbrook" in the Z-film -- although that gal (Gloria Holt), as can be seen in the Z-film, is normal in height and girth, and is a "strawberry-blond," too boot?

LOL

-- MWT   ;)

I suppose I must have missed this reply as posted, but the 2nd paragraph is quite important as it relates to StephenFagin's SixthFloorMuseum interview video, especially the question, (Did you notice the pained look on her face and total silence when he took the liberty to point "her" out in Willis-5 photo too?)"

And, as I posted that upon a re-viewing of said video, IIRC, the observance of Willis5 Photograph appears to occur at/or about the 19 minute mark of the video, and as noted, to me she appeared to possibly be somewhat puzzled as she viewed the LadyImage from the front, that she had id'd from the rear as herself.

But again, simply an effort to correctly identify various Motorcade viewers as the PresidentialMotorcade proceeded into DealeyPlaza and the shooting took place.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on May 05, 2019, 12:00:24 PM
If prayer person is Oswald, then where is Sarah Staunton located in Wiegman and Darnell films?

Sarah would either have to be hidden behind or east of BWF on the front landing. Or Sarah Staunton would have to  return into TSBD before  Wiegman film records front entrance portal of TSBD.

If Sarah returned into TSBD before Wiegman, then it must be demonstrated that Gloria Cavalry came running up to the TSBD front steps as early as 10 sec post shots, so there is time for BWF to glance at Staunton, simultaneous with hearing Cavalry, and then Sarah leaves "immediately"  just before Wiegnman film is recording image of Prayer person.

This is very improbable,however, since when Wiegman film is panning past Mr.Campbell and Mrs Reid* on the curb of Elm, not all 3 shots have been fired yet.

Would Gloria Cavalry have run up to the TSBD entrance steps BEFORE the 3rd shot was fired? Doubtful
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 06, 2019, 09:06:10 AM
Larry,

Yes, I already "got" that (i.e., that you believe Prayer Person is not only a female, but is probably Sarah Stanton).

But that isn't what I was asking.

In so many words, I was rhetorically asking whether or not Iacoletti is truly as agnostic on the Prayer Person issue as he claims to be.

Seeing as how he only demands that Prayer Women adherents "prove it," I rather doubt it.

-- MWT  ;)

Edited and bumped

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on May 06, 2019, 04:39:41 PM
JI - Even if PP was Stanton, this would tell you nothing about where Oswald was.

Touche. Two independent note-takers independently wrote "out front P. parade" [paraphrasing here] during the interviews.

That *has* to mean something and possibly mean something more than the identity of the person in the vestibule.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 06, 2019, 05:29:12 PM
JI - Even if PP was Stanton, this would tell you nothing about where Oswald was.

Touche. Two independent note-takers independently wrote "out front P. parade" [paraphrasing here] during the interviews.

That *has* to mean something and possibly mean something more than the identity of the person in the vestibule.

As two independent eyewitnesses, TSBD Bldg Superintendent RoyTruly and DPD MotorcyclePatrolOfficer MarrionBaker, confirmed in testimony under oath, LeeHarveyOswald was encountered at the SecondFloorLunchRoom about 90 to 120 seconds after the shooting/assassination, IIRC.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 06, 2019, 07:09:34 PM
As two independent eyewitnesses, TSBD Bldg Superintendent RoyTruly and DPD MotorcyclePatrolOfficer MarrionBaker, confirmed in testimony under oath, LeeHarveyOswald was encountered at the SecondFloorLunchRoom about 90 to 120 seconds after the shooting/assassination, IIRC.

Why,in his same day affidavit, did your independent witness,  Marion Baker state  "As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." ?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on May 06, 2019, 08:29:56 PM
BRIAN - We've proven Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...

Brian, the person up in the shadows is not a 300 lb. woman. I think if you showed that to a six-year-old and asked him/her "Do you think that's a fat person" I believe they'd say no. It's elementary.

Fritz's "out front with Shelley" is the other independent note that corroborates Hosty's.

Further, Davidson's "enhancements" cannot "enhance" grainy footage. The best type of enhancement I've ever seen of footage that is not so great was done at NASA during the Challenger disaster. Blowing up a frame of film in Photoshop that shows a great distance is not going to do it, no matter how much contrast and brightness and sharpen Davidson (or I for that matter) add to the frame. They only way we'll ever know if to get a frame from the film negative and I don't think that's ever going to happen for whatever reason.

Larry - your reply is just a tad disingenuous. You mention Truly and the cop. Seriously? You know damn well I mean that the Hosty and Fritz notes describe what LHO was going *when Kennedy came by the building* NOT 30 to 60 seconds later.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on May 07, 2019, 12:17:59 AM
A little more shadow contrast first, and then a general contrast adjustment and that would be as far as I go:
Afterwards, use the densitometer to find like values in the (image where the white object is larger/more clear and square) face and right arm.
(https://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/PM1.gif)

In the following,
Every 1 foot back from the landing edge equaled an approx 1 inch reduction in height from the camera perspective.
An example would be the straddle height compared to six feet back from the landing edge.
The steps were 7" in rise.
(https://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Landing_1.gif)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on May 07, 2019, 11:43:01 AM
Which side of the front steps did Baker ascend?

Where was Sarah Staunton standing, if Prayerperson is Oswald?

Which side of the front steps did Gloria Cavalry stop at, to make her exclamation? The side with people going up, with their backs to her, or the side where persons she knows, are standing FACING her, and are stationary?

If Sarah is standing behind BWF, during Wiegman and Darnell films, she is  BLOCKNG the front door. Thus, Sarah would have to either move to the west towards Prayerperson or move east towards Pauline Sanders, to be out of the way of Baker/Truly entering the door.

IF Sarah leaves the landing entirely by entering into the front lobby, BEFORE Baker/Truly get to the door, then she would have likely been gone before Gloria Cavalry has reached the front steps.  BWF remembers Sarah being "to his left" at the time when Cavalry has reached the steps and implies they BOTH heard Cavalry exclaiming. So this makes an early Sarah departure into the lobby, less probable.

If Oswald is PM. Sarah Staunton, moving west, almost into his space, and not remembering Oswald, = improbable.  Moving towards PM, makes Sarah, even MORE an obstacle to the flow of persons coming up the steps= increasingly improbable. Not seeing Baker and Truly coming up this side of steps and them likewise mssing the 300 lb woman in their way= nearing zero probability.

Sarah moving east, away from the front door, towards Pauline Sanders,imo is the most probable hypothetical option if PM is Oswald. This is predicated on Sarah obscured from view behind BWF, having her LOS blocked, and thus Sarah missed seeing Baker,while Pauline, from her east corner, may have had LOS to Baker "approaching" across the 30 ft approx of sidewalk. When Cavalry reaches the lower step and probably stops to right side, where persons are standing facing her, then BWF and Staunton are looking in this direction. Sarah has now moved adjacent to Pauline, thus is between BWF and Pauiine. Both BWF and Sarah  miss Baker ascending the left side, he now obscured into the "flow' of persons moving up.

Absent any other photographic evidence that more certainly identifies Sarah Stauntons location on the landing during the time of Wiegman and Darnell film capturing the image of PM, or some other evidence placing Sarah Staunton in the front lobby before Truly/Baker enter, then the above hypothetical logical deductive reasons given by Zeon Mason, must remain speculative :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 07, 2019, 04:01:38 PM
Sarah moving east, away from the front door, towards Pauline Sanders,imo is the most probable hypothetical option if PM is Oswald. This is predicated on Sarah obscured from view behind BWF, having her LOS blocked, and thus Sarah missed seeing Baker,while Pauline, from her east corner, may have had LOS to Baker "approaching" across the 30 ft approx of sidewalk.

Why do you think that Sarah didn't see Baker?

P.S. it's Stanton, not Staunton.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on May 07, 2019, 11:59:51 PM
Yeah, dead ringer.   ::)

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/pwa1.jpg)(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/stanton-old-face.jpg)

 :D

BAAAWAAAHAHHAHAAAA! OMFG!! Life According to Brian. And the icing on cake is he's investigating Hendrix's "murder."  HAHAHAAA!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 08, 2019, 12:02:54 AM
BAAAWAAAHAHHAHAAAA! OMFG!! Life According to Brian. And the icing on cake is he's investigating Hendrix's "murder."  HAHAHAAA!

He used "linguistic forensics" to solve that one too.   :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on May 08, 2019, 08:54:54 AM
BAAAWAAAHAHHAHAAAA! OMFG!! Life According to Brian. And the icing on cake is he's investigating Hendrix's "murder."  HAHAHAAA!

It's definitely Mary Tyler Moore.  I said that on the old PrayerDude thread.  You should put that one back up, Duncan.  Let Ralph Cinque and Albert have at it again, just for old times' sake.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 08, 2019, 01:28:22 PM
It's definitely Mary Tyler Moore.  I said that on the old PrayerDude thread.  You should put that one back up, Duncan.  Let Ralph Cinque and Albert have at it again, just for old times' sake.

It?s Michael Jackson, I?m telling you. I?ve proven it forensically, and I am the most skilled on the Internet. The first professional photo expert to look at this will confirm it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Chris Davidson on May 08, 2019, 04:33:46 PM
"Chris - Really...Check out your height line as it goes left and see how uncredible it is as a straight measure..."
The height line is for Lovelady's head.
That's why I asked you to define where Prayer Persons head top is.
Otherwise, how do I know what you consider the top of Prayer Persons head to be?
If you can't show it in a graphic format, then describe what the declination angle would be using the existing blue line.
In other words, should I angle that blue line (starting from Lovelady's head) from right to left 1 degree downward, 2degrees etc etc.?


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on May 09, 2019, 07:20:56 AM
Why do you think that Sarah didn't see Baker?

P.S. it's Stanton, not Staunton.


IDK if STANTON ;) saw Baker or not. All I know is there are no statements of hers on record or any from any relative late recollection of Sarah having seen any police officer approach or run up the front steps.

Of course there is always the possibility that Sarah was having a moment of unawareness as many others were, like BWF himself, and missed seeing the White Helmet Running Man.

If Stancek and other Prayer person is Oswald "convinced" supporters are placing Sarah behind BWF, thus in front of the door, then she is definitely an obstacle at 300 lbs girth.

And at this location, her LOS is rather restricted, thus higher probability of having missed Baker running on approach, while Pauline Sanders on the other hand has a better LOS from her east corner of landing, thus did remember seeing Baker.

But it could also be as probable that Sarah is prayer person in west corner, and that Baker went up the east side of steps, rather than west side, so would go very close to Pauline, while on the other side, Stanton, BWF are now focused on Gloria Cavalry.

This why i was asking which side Baker goes up? Left side or right side of steps?


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on May 09, 2019, 01:21:24 PM
Meanwhile, back in the real world...

(https://i.imgflip.com/30j0d3.gif)

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 09, 2019, 02:09:44 PM
Of course there is always the possibility that Sarah was having a moment of unawareness as many others were, like BWF himself, and missed seeing the White Helmet Running Man.

Yes, and it?s just as possible that she saw him. Her only statement was when the FBI went around to all the employees to ask them if they saw Oswald that day. I doubt anybody asked her about the running cop.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 09, 2019, 08:09:43 PM
You're not the leading authority on anything.

Says the dude who can't tell women from men.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on May 09, 2019, 08:25:43 PM
Every time Tom Graves throws in one of his oft-used phrases "....it's...it's the evil CIA ..." it's really because he just can't wrap his ahead around the fact that one of his heroes, JJA, was duped when 11/22 blew up in his face. Read State Secret for the play by play...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 09, 2019, 08:37:17 PM
Says the dude who can't tell women from men.

Says the dude who engages in creative blob interpreting.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 09, 2019, 08:50:08 PM
Says the dude who engages in creative blob interpreting.

Says the mixed-up dude who can't tell women from men, whose religion is Contrarianism, and whose
probable heroes are William Binney and Julian Assange.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on May 09, 2019, 08:52:17 PM
Every time Tom Graves throws in one of his oft-used phrases "....it's...it's the evil CIA ..." it's really because he just can't wrap his ahead around the fact that one of his heroes, JJA, was duped when 11/22 blew up in his face. Read State Secret for the play by play...

Bumped for Tom. And now that we're talking heroes and Tom's Secret Sauce Despise list - LOL

John Boy
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 09, 2019, 08:56:42 PM
Every time Tom Graves throws in one of his oft-used phrases "....it's...it's the evil CIA ..." it's really because he just can't wrap his ahead around the fact that one of his heroes, JJA, was duped when 11/22 blew up in his face. Read State Secret for the play by play...

Says angry, self-described deaf guy who is starving for attention, recognition and respect.

Read Spy Wars.

It's free to read on the Internet.

Then read Wedge, especially Chapter 10.  It's free to read on the Internet, too.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on May 09, 2019, 09:03:47 PM
Nah, it's not about me at all. Just trying to get to some semblance of the truth. And when you have biased people like you are, it's going to warp your ability to see the truth. Put another way, your Despise list spoke huge volumes to how you really think...and how you think about this case.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 09, 2019, 09:59:37 PM
Nah, it's not about me at all. Just trying to get to some semblance of the truth. And when you have biased people like you are, it's going to warp your ability to see the truth. Put another way, your Despise list spoke huge volumes to how you really think...and how you think about this case.

J.B.,

Have you looked at my posts at the EF going all the way back to 2005? Believe it or not, I used to be as clueless as you are.

Have you read Spy Wars, yet?  (Tennent H. Bagley -- R.I.P. -- was a "Lone Nutter," btw.)

How about Chapter 10 of Mark Riebling's Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA?

There's no use in our continuing our little "debate" until you do.

-- MWT   ;)

PS  What makes you think I haven't already read State Secret?

Why don't you ask Simpich if he's ever going to incorporate my discovery (that triple-agent "Byetkov*?" was the guy who volunteered the made-radioactive-by-KGB name "Kostikov" to an Oswald impersonator over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phoneline on 10/02/63) into his theory?

I'm speaking of Ivan Obyedkov, of course.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1447&search=angleton#relPageId=16&tab=page

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on May 10, 2019, 12:38:51 AM
Anti-Prayer-Man zealotry on the CT side stems from the simple but disgraceful fact that some CTs just don't want Prayer Man to be Mr Oswald because that would muck up their pathetic pet theory of 2 Oswalds or KGB dunnit or etc. etc.

These zealots, with their truly laughable It's-A-White-Haired-Obese-Woman! 'theory', like to focus on one Wiegman frame in isolation from others, because.....

to look at the other frames makes it perfectly plain that the 'face' in their favorite frame is no such thing:

(https://i.imgflip.com/30kzd0.gif) (https://imgflip.com/gif/30kzd0) (https://imgflip.com/gif-maker)

Because the Anyone-But-Oswald diehards have incorrectly judged where the top of Prayer Man's head is, they try to hide their rookie error by showing, over and over again, their favorite frame not just in isolation but cropped at the top!    :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on May 10, 2019, 12:40:35 AM
Says angry, self-described deaf guy who is starving for attention, recognition and respect.


What a disgusting thing to write.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Brown on May 10, 2019, 12:47:27 AM
This is not directed towards anyone in particular.

Regarding this entire thread....

Oswald admitted, on film, that he was inside the building at the time.

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

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

So, who cares who that person was?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on May 10, 2019, 02:13:49 AM
This is not directed towards anyone in particular.

Regarding this entire thread....

Oswald admitted, on film, that he was inside the building at the time.

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

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

So, who cares who that person was?

I'm afraid, Mr Brown, that old argument died an ignominious death on 19 February 2019, when these interrogation notes from Agent James Hosty came to light:

(https://i.imgur.com/yIvF6og.jpg)

Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz that he 'went outside to watch P. parade'. Couldn't be clearer. No interpretive wiggle-room!

Now! As for what Mr Oswald told the newsman, he never volunteered that he was inside the building 'at the time', he merely agreed that he 'naturally' was 'in' it.

There is only one place that fits the double description
-------'in the building'
-------'outside'

That place is the enclosed entranceway, which is still part of the building yet is out in the open air.

That's where Mr Oswald claimed to have been when JFK passed the building, and that's where the Oswald-resembling Prayer Man is. Attempts over the last five-and-a-half years to find a credible alternative candidate for Prayer Man have been a total flop.

So this is why so many non-members of the Guild of Warren Gullibles care. It's also why the attacks on the PM=LHO claim have been so ferocious, devious and fanatical---people understand what's at stake.

I suggest you repeat the words "Then went outside to watch P. parade" until their significance, and the significance of their having been suppressed in all the official interrogation reports, sinks in!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Brown on May 10, 2019, 02:57:19 AM
Oswald: I work in that building.

Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?

Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Brown on May 10, 2019, 03:26:23 AM
Oswald also said, during interrogations, that he was in the first floor lunchroom eating his lunch at the time of the shooting.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 10, 2019, 07:58:15 PM
"... at the time?", at the time of what exactly?

People went inside(or back to their business) BEFORE they learnt of the shooting, so could he have been outside and then was actually inside when he learnt of it?  For some of us, yes of course.

So its, "There's been a shooting Lee" and where was he when he heard that?  Inside.  That's the beginning of it for him, perhaps and that explains his response to a question during a brief conversation we are not fully privy to.
Can we even say he knew it had happened on Elm St itself before these vultures started barraging him?

Also, it's a wee bit rich throwing quotes out from someone you already think is a liar, loner, wife beater and #1 scumbag of all time for killing your hero(no offence).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on May 10, 2019, 08:31:43 PM
"... at the time?", at the time of what exactly?

People went inside(or back to their business) BEFORE they learnt of the shooting, so could he have been outside and then was actually inside when he learnt of it?  For some of us, yes of course.

So its, "There's been a shooting Lee" and where was he when he heard that?  Inside.  That's the beginning of it for him, perhaps and that explains his response to a question during a brief conversation we are not fully privy to.
Can we even say he knew it had happened on Elm St itself before these vultures started barraging him?

Also, it's a wee bit rich throwing quotes out from someone you already think is a teller of non truths, loner, wife beater and #1 scumbag of all time for killing your hero(no offence).

Oswald shot Kennedy.  Get over it, folks.  Bang, Bang, Bang.  His lucky day.  Sigh+
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2019, 12:33:02 AM
Oswald also said, during interrogations, that he was in the first floor lunchroom eating his lunch at the time of the shooting.

Depends on which account of the interrogations you want to go with.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2019, 12:33:53 AM
Also, it's a wee bit rich throwing quotes out from someone you already think is a teller of non truths, loner, wife beater and #1 scumbag of all time for killing your hero(no offence).

Yeah...."Oswald was a l-i-a-r....except when he wasn't".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2019, 12:34:46 AM
Oswald shot Kennedy.  Get over it, folks.  Bang, Bang, Bang.  His lucky day.  Sigh+

And you'll never be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Get over it, folks.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Brown on May 11, 2019, 09:41:32 AM
And now, some 55+ years later, there is still not any eyewitness testimony/statement placing LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Bldg Elm St Entrance Landing at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63, and/or at the time of the Assassination of JFK Sr and Wounding of JBC Jr. And, among potential eyewitnesses were many co-workers, including BuellWesleyFrazier that LHO rode to work with that very morning, who would have recognized the soon to be, arguably, the most famous accused LoneGunmanAssassin of all time.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Brown on May 11, 2019, 09:41:58 AM
Depends on which account of the interrogations you want to go with.

That's my point.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Ford on May 11, 2019, 02:02:34 PM
That's my point.

Ah, but there's a difference, Mr Brown!

That the official published interrogation reports would say nothing about Mr Oswald's claim to have gone outside to watch the Presidential parade makes perfect sense to me. I don't run away from it. Mr Oswald's claim was suppressed because it was too dangerous for the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigation.

You, on the other hand. Well... Let's see. You are shown this in the unofficial handwritten interrogation notes of Agent Hosty:

(https://i.imgur.com/yIvF6og.jpg)

"Then went outside to watch P. parade."

This is clearly something that you cannot explain (unless you wish to press the absurd case that an FBI agent would misunderstand the claimed whereabouts of the suspect in the assassination of President Kennedy?).

So what do you do? Simple! You pretend it doesn't exist. Too inconvenient. Best ignored.  :)

But hey, Mr Brown, that's okay. We understand where you're coming from: the very same Warren Gullibility comfort zone where your fellow propagandists like Mr von Pein and Prof McAdams reside. If ignoring uncongenial evidence keeps you happy, then we're happy for you!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Brown on May 12, 2019, 07:52:53 AM
On film....

Oswald: I work in that building.

Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?

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


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

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

So, who cares who that person was?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 12, 2019, 09:13:54 AM
On film....

Oswald: I work in that building.

Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?

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


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

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

So, who cares who that person was?

Define "at that time", Bill.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 12, 2019, 10:03:43 AM
Define "at that time", Bill.

Ray,

He obviously was asking him if he was in the building when the I Love Lucy rerun came on.

-- MWT   ;)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Walton on May 12, 2019, 11:49:59 AM
Ray - Tom Graves recently revealed on a post his Despise List. It was taken down by the admin because it also included some other stuff in it and whoever reported it, the post was removed and Graves was suspended here for a while.

The reason why I'm bringing this up is because when folks on this board say Oswald did it all by himself, they're pretty much Kennedy haters. Graves is one of them based on what he revealed. Therefore, you're never going to get incisive and objective analysis from the likes of Graves and others. Put another way, it's like a police detective who has a hatred of prostitutes - and when one is found dead on the street, the detective's work trying to solve her crime is clouded by, "Nahh, she deserved it..." or whatever other bias this cop would have toward her.

The same with the Kennedy case. So it's fruitless to keep arguing this over and over again because hate is very, very strong emotion. We simply can't expect a hater to become all Grinch like, see the light, and open his mind to fair analysis on this case.

NOTE - I know this is probably an unpopular thing to discuss or bring up here but it really does make a difference in how someone perceives the merits of the JFK case.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 12, 2019, 04:15:15 PM
Ray - Tom Graves recently revealed on a post his Despise List. It was taken down by the admin because it also included some other stuff in it and whoever reported it, the post was removed and Graves was suspended here for a while.

The reason why I'm bringing this up is because when folks on this board say Oswald did it all by himself, they're pretty much Kennedy haters. Graves is one of them based on what he revealed. Therefore, you're never going to get incisive and objective analysis from the likes of Graves and others. Put another way, it's like a police detective who has a hatred of prostitutes - and when one is found dead on the street, the detective's work trying to solve her crime is clouded by, "Nahh, she deserved it..." or whatever other bias this cop would have toward her.

The same with the Kennedy case. So it's fruitless to keep arguing this over and over again because hate is very, very strong emotion. We simply can't expect a hater to become all Grinch like, see the light, and open his mind to fair analysis on this case.

NOTE - I know this is probably an unpopular thing to discuss or bring up here but it really does make a difference in how someone perceives the merits of the JFK case.

Walton,

As regards the JFK assassination, WTF is wrong with my despising "researchers" and wannabe pundits (such as yourself) whom I consider to be witting or unwitting purveyors of Ruskie active measures (since 1921) and strategic deceptions (since 1959)-based propaganda?

Should I love you (plural), instead?

Show you compassion (that's what you want, isn't it -- that and respect?)?

Accept your mistake-laden arguments, theories, and self-righteous, oh-so-indignant pronouncements?

(Dramatic pause ...)

(Sigh ...)

Yeah, I guess you're right, Michael.

I no longer despise you and your ilk.

Now I'm just weeping for all of the brainwashed-by-KGB-via-Rush-and-Alex Trump supporters out there.

-- MWT  :)

PS  Carry on, Michael Walton. Commissar James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio and his deputies have great hopes for you!

PPS  Yes, I've already read State Secret. Have you read Spy Wars and Chapter 10 of Wedge, yet? Get back to me when you have.

PPPS Here's a mouth-watering morsel for you: I now believe Bagley's "help" in interviewing Nosenko in Geneva in 1962, "expert handler" George Kisevalter, was a mole may have been a mole. He was King Midas In Reverse in that all the gold he touched turned to you-know what.

Popov, Penkovsky.  And the clincher: He adamantly asserted until the end that Yuri Nosenko was a true defector!

LOL

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Zeon Mason on May 13, 2019, 07:44:55 AM
 At the time that the JFK motorcade entered Dealey Plaza, Oswald may have been "in the building"

At the time  the JFK motorcade approached towards TSBD, Oswald may have been "in the lobby"of the building"

At the time the JFK limo turned onto Elm st, Oswald may have just  opened the front door slightly inwardly, and sliped out to catch a glimpse, and stood at the west side of the entrance landing. Oswald was just an insignifcant newly hired employee that nobody noticed, or cared about, other than perhaps BW.Frazier.

Did Oswald misinterpret  what the phrase "at the time" meant? 

What about the other opportunities Oswald had to declare "I was out front"? The Midnight Conference. Oswald speaks to his brother. Oswald speaks with Marina. No mention by Oswald, of his "out front with Shelly"  or "out front watching the parade".

It is  a question of Oswalds state of mind. Was he overconfident? If Oswald is prayer person, then he knew he had an ironclad alibi, but if he  were also in a state of mind as the WC theory suggests, of "delusions of grandeur" then it is possible Oswald thought he could take advantage of his "wrongful arrest" to secure fame and monetary settlement. If so, then he miscalculated he had "time" to play this out.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Richard Smith on May 13, 2019, 07:53:02 PM
Ray - Tom Graves recently revealed on a post his Despise List. It was taken down by the admin because it also included some other stuff in it and whoever reported it, the post was removed and Graves was suspended here for a while.

The reason why I'm bringing this up is because when folks on this board say Oswald did it all by himself, they're pretty much Kennedy haters. Graves is one of them based on what he revealed. Therefore, you're never going to get incisive and objective analysis from the likes of Graves and others. Put another way, it's like a police detective who has a hatred of prostitutes - and when one is found dead on the street, the detective's work trying to solve her crime is clouded by, "Nahh, she deserved it..." or whatever other bias this cop would have toward her.

The same with the Kennedy case. So it's fruitless to keep arguing this over and over again because hate is very, very strong emotion. We simply can't expect a hater to become all Grinch like, see the light, and open his mind to fair analysis on this case.

NOTE - I know this is probably an unpopular thing to discuss or bring up here but it really does make a difference in how someone perceives the merits of the JFK case.

I'm not aware of many LNers being JFK "haters" (whatever that means).  More importantly your rationale is faulty even if that false premise were true.  How exactly is the cause of "hating" JFK advanced by concluding that Oswald was the lone assassin?  There is no correlation between those two concepts.  What difference would it make to a JFK "hater" whether he was murdered by Oswald or a conspiracy?  He is dead either way.   It is the evidence that dictates the conclusion.  If there was credible evidence of a conspiracy - as in the assassination of Lincoln - then that is what LNers would accept.   
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Chapman on May 13, 2019, 08:22:36 PM
Yeah...."Oswald was a l-i-a-r....except when he wasn't".

Oswald: I'm innocent
Iacoletti:: Okay, you can go
Oswald: [SMIRK]
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 15, 2019, 10:41:04 PM
And now, some 55+ years later, there is still not any eyewitness testimony/statement placing LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Bldg Elm St Entrance Landing at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63, and/or at the time of the Assassination of JFK Sr and Wounding of JBC Jr. And, among potential eyewitnesses were many co-workers, including BuellWesleyFrazier that LHO rode to work with that very morning, who would have recognized the soon to be, arguably, the most famous accused LoneGunmanAssassin of all time.

We have witnesses claiming there were shots from the knoll Larry but in the end it don't mean nothing because it doesn't prove nothing.
If witnesses really meant something to you which I highly doubt, you wouldn't be wasting your time here, there's a hole in the back of his head the size according to more than one witness and that's all you need apparently... right?
Takes 25yrs for Frazier to tell us he saw LHO walking along Houston and suddenly it's a hard fact to some people in this lil' world of ours.  I just don't get it.  Like you'd change your mind if one was found, or a relative of one who claimed "they told me he/she saw him there", it's ridiculous.

"I didn't shoot nobody", remember?  There's your "witness" right there.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 16, 2019, 08:18:04 AM
There is another frame that provides an alternative take on the Weigman PM and it's a careful and focused enhancement.  Unlike the freak that came about by complete accident.  One big clue for the layman is the big "forehead" coming out of PM's skull in the frame you like, it's actually longer than Herman Munster's(no joke, it really is).
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 16, 2019, 01:04:38 PM
...
(https://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/PM_3.gif)

The technique was the same for both frames but we have two very different looking faces/heads, so will you at least recognise "the other woman" to begin with Brian?  Perhaps someone can isolate "her from the gif for us(or I could try later)? 
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 16, 2019, 11:00:13 PM
Oswald: I'm innocent
Iacoletti:: Okay, you can go
Oswald: [SMIRK]

This old chestnut...

Maybe it's time for a Chapman's Fabrications thread.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Alan Hardaker on May 19, 2019, 01:39:59 AM
Ah, but there's a difference, Mr Brown!

That the official published interrogation reports would say nothing about Mr Oswald's claim to have gone outside to watch the Presidential parade makes perfect sense to me. I don't run away from it. Mr Oswald's claim was suppressed because it was too dangerous for the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigation.

You, on the other hand. Well... Let's see. You are shown this in the unofficial handwritten interrogation notes of Agent Hosty:

(https://i.imgur.com/yIvF6og.jpg)

"Then went outside to watch P. parade."

This is clearly something that you cannot explain (unless you wish to press the absurd case that an FBI agent would misunderstand the claimed whereabouts of the suspect in the assassination of President Kennedy?).

So what do you do? Simple! You pretend it doesn't exist. Too inconvenient. Best ignored.  :)

But hey, Mr Brown, that's okay. We understand where you're coming from: the very same Warren Gullibility comfort zone where your fellow propagandists like Mr von Pein and Prof McAdams reside. If ignoring uncongenial evidence keeps you happy, then we're happy for you!  Thumb1:

The only comment I will make and it may not be in context but the claim that Oswald "went outside to watch the parade"...statement reads..."went to 2nd floor to get a coca cola to eat with his lunch, then returned to the first floor to eat lunch, then went outside to watch the parade". Timeline doesn't add up..as Oswald was seen on the 2nd floor by Truely and Baker getting his coca cola...but by then the parade and indeed murder had already happened.....so obviously the statement doesn't make any sense time wise...for Oswald statement to add up time wise it should read..."Went to 2nd floor to get a coca cola to eat with his lunch, and returned to first floor to eat his lunch, then went outside to watch parade, then went back up to the 2nd floor"...where he was confronted by Truely and Baker...

well I mean in truth he was on the 2nd floor because he had just hot footed it down from the 6th floor...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 19, 2019, 09:32:51 PM
I am not sure I see what you see Thomas. How does WeigmanFilm start/entrance portal filming compare with Altgens6Photo?


Larry,

You can probably find what's been written about it on the EF.

Rhetorical question: Do you think Darnell's fast panning back to the right and then back to the left and then jumping out of the car might have been in response to his hearing the shots?

-- MWT  :)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 20, 2019, 01:34:35 AM
The problem for you with that "take" is that Prayer Person is visible in situ in Weigman, and Weigman started filming the steps just before the first shot rang out.

-- MWT  :)

Minor correction Tommy.
Wiegman reacted sometime after the first shot, close to but also after Altgens' own first reaction(which is what I believe it is, I mean, Ike taking a picture of the motorcade without Kennedy fully visible would be worthless).  Wiegman is seen on Houston expecting something to happen and ready to react to it(Skaggs) and did not have the limo or QM in his sights yet those few seconds later, so his reaction was more likely IMHO based on what he heard, a loud crack perhaps.
The filming of the entrance, pure coincidence as he got ready to jump out, again IMO.

Folks moving around the steps inbetween shots, in reaction to them?  Not impossible of course but the only evidence of that is from Lovelady and who really knows why he moved exactly?  He was even moving around before it all really began.
So BWF not only heard recognisable gunfire but he notices others next to him react to it and then he gets confirmation some twenty seconds later that JFK was actually hit he's genuinly stumped?  Just how big is this hole he's digging for himself going to get?

First question to him about shoes should be regarding whether he knew how to tie them.  It's not looking too good.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 20, 2019, 04:34:29 PM
...
The filming of the entrance, pure coincidence as he got ready to jump out, again IMO.
...

What hand does he have his camera in on Houston(Scaggs) and what hand do we see him put down on the car as they turn turn the corner in his own film?  So camera goes on first of course and he's swapping it to his right hand because he already knows where he's going, straight towards the limo and get this, whilst he knew bullets were still flying?  Not very likely.  He cannot have recognised those sounds as gunshots, I mean, we know he was keen but that's just too much to risk for a few seconds of film.  No wonder Hargis reacted to him like he did and scared everyone by running toward the newsman with his pistol out.  If Dave knew what that cop had just witnessed or even that that was actual gunfire he heard, he would have never reacted like that.  All we would have seen of him would be one arm holding his camera, as the rest of him would be on the floor of CC1.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 20, 2019, 08:50:39 PM
Keep your posts short and we'll continue to read them but 2000 words about what's happening elsewhere, who cares?  Not me.  Didn't read it, don't intend to, sorry old boy but we all know who that's catered to and it isn't us.

(https://i.gifer.com/2EwR.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 21, 2019, 11:24:24 AM
...
Why are there no eyes, nose. lips etc, etc on BWF PM is the same distance from the camera Brian?

*Alan posted Sandy's gif here to remind us all of the displacement and I bumped it for you and both times you had nothing.

*Slight correction and a question I'd really like an answer to Brian... anything, take a guess, why are there no details on BWF when we have all that on SS/PM/PP/LHO/or whoever in the exact same frame?

Have you seen Bart's best capture of PM in Wiegman?  I'm sure you have but anyway, that is consistant with what we see of Frazier, no facial features whatsoever.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 26, 2019, 09:12:29 PM
Frazier's comment and head motion illustration appears to indicate that Sarah Stanton was standing In the shadows, and standing to his right.


At first glance (pardon the pun), I find that rather compelling.

-- MWT  ;)

Edit: But then I watched the 50-minute youtube video, and realized that Frazier was answering a question that had come from that direction in the room.


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 26, 2019, 10:19:07 PM
Duncan,

At first glance (pardon the pun), I find that movement of Frazier's head to his right in the clip quite compelling.

-- MWT  ;)

Edit: But then I watched the 50-minute youtube video, and realized Frazier was answering a question that had come from that direction in the room.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 27, 2019, 02:44:51 AM
I am amending the "facts" stated from one or more posters on this thread. I may be wrong myself but these are the "facts" as I understand them:

1. Billy Lovelady's  1964 FBI statements. There is nothing stated that Lovelady was "against the west wall" nor anything describing  where Sarah Stanton was standing exactly relative to Lovelady.
2. In Lovelady WC testimony, he does not locate Sarah Stanton other than with himself and Bill Shelley as a general statement.
3. The woman seen running up simultaneously to the front TSBD entrance steps, in the Darnell film, just as Baker is also approaching steps, and Roy Truly can be seen turning around, that woman is most likely Gloria Cavalry. It is uncertain if she reaches steps before Baker does, or Baker reaches steps before she does, as the camera pans away before either B or C get there.
4. The Altgens no.6 photo is taken at Z255 after 2 shots supposedly have been fired, but not yet the 3rd shot, so it is improbable imo  that Gloria Cavalry could be on the steps in that photo either. The logic being, that its not very likely that Cavalry would start running towards the TSBD at the first shot fired, since virually NO ONE recognized that as shot fired, or even that JFK was hit.

 It is unclear (imo) where exactly BW Frazier is, and where Sarah Stanton is, in the Altgens no.6 photo. If Bill Shelly is seen, but not BW Frazier, how is this possible if Bill Shelly were standing on the EAST side of the center handrail? Yet Bill Shelly seems to be in front of BWF. Frasier is in total shadow in this photo?

1) BillyLoveladyImage appears to be on the west side of the stairway center hand-rail in WiegmanFilm, DarnellFilm, and Altgens6Photo.
2) That to me indicates that if near SarahStantonImage, most likely both would be west of said hand-rail.

3) There is a separate thread that is dedicated to the Image identification of The Real Gloria Calvery. However, GloriaCalveryImage had time to reach, and appears to have reached the stairway in DarnellFilm, likely about 20 seconds after the last shot and just ahead of DPD Officer MarrionBaker.
4) There is nothing to indicate GloriaCalveryImage has left her Motorcade viewing place on the Elm St curb/sidewalk at the time of Altgens6Photo and just before the last shot. CameramanDarnell was in the 3rd CameraCar, and had just turned off Main St to Houston St when the shooting began, and with OfficerBaker along side/slightly ahead of said CC at that time.

The landing OccupantImages on the east side of the rail would likely be visible in Altgens6Photo, but mostly hidden on the west side, i.e BuellFrazierImage and SarahStantonImage.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 27, 2019, 11:34:36 AM
That's it then, lock it down, it's over and as we'd want to be consistant, any talk of Lee's guilt, which Buell himself has serious doubts about, just show 'em this.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 27, 2019, 12:05:41 PM
Hughes and Lovelady in harmony, take a long hard look at his position pls Brian.
(https://i.imgur.com/UglnVrv.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 27, 2019, 12:06:55 PM
Frazier is addressing the whole room, not just one person.

Like myself, Brian has noticed that Frazier's eyes, as well as his head, move to the right in synchronisation with the "We looked at one another" part of his statement.

The video quality of this section is better than the quality of this gif.

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

Duncan,

The man who asked the question that Frazier was addressing was sitting on the right side of the room, from Frazier's POV.

If you actually watch the part of the 48-minute and 53-second youtube video in which that man is asking that question, and how Frazier looks at him a few times in exactly the same direction while answering his question, you'll realize that Frazier doesn't "motion" with his head or eyes as you and Brian claim.

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on May 27, 2019, 12:30:55 PM
Duncan,

The man who asked the question that Frazier was addressing was sitting on the right side of the room, from Frazier's POV.

If you actually watch the part of the 48-minute and 53-second youtube video in which that man is asking that question, and how Frazier looks at him a few times in exactly the same direction while answering his question, you'll realize that Frazier doesn't "motion" with his head or eyes as you and Brian claim.

I disagree, the body language is completely different.

Frazier makes an unconscious and extremely short but noticeable visual pause when unconsciously visually describing his head and eyes motions turns towards Sarah Stanton.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Duncan MacRae on May 27, 2019, 09:09:46 PM
Just for the record, I was not banned from The Education Forum.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 28, 2019, 03:57:56 AM
Mike,

I posted:


Brian,

You always seem to shoot yourself in the foot.

I wasn't banned from the EF because I was claiming that Prayer Person couldn't be Oswald, but because Mikey had baited me with three successive, short, non-contributing, asinine posts on a thread (after Kathy Beckett had sternly warned both of us in PMs to behave ourselves while was on her away-from-Internet vacation in Europe), waited for me to "rise" to said insults and to post something sarcastic in reply, and then, like a rat, very quickly deleted his offending posts so that Beckett wouldn't see them when she "checked in," but would see my outrageous reply, instead.

-- MWT  ;)




You replied:

That is fantasy,  Thomasitayuritovich. While you allowed yourself, and still do, the freedom to post, ad nauseam, your Bagley/spy wars plug, you completely lost your cookies when I set-out to begin answering (yes, ad-nauseum) them with my Howard Olson document which, as John Newman messaged me, served the purpose of “spiking Pete’s career”. Pete is Pete Bagley, for clarity.

That’s it. You made the rest of that up.



Mike,

You don't remember the three, consecutive, short, inane, "covering," non-contributing-to-the-thread posts you made on May 20, 2017, on page 1 of my new thread "For Chris Newton, Larry Hancock, Tracy Parnell and Other Critically-Minded Members" ???

Here's a screen shot of the pertinent part of that page, with your comments highlighted in bold text:



Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted unnecessarily abrasive post.
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Unnecessary, OT post
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 28, 2019, 04:11:03 AM
Mike,

I posted:


Brian,

You always seem to shoot yourself in the foot.

I wasn't banned from the EF because I was claiming that Prayer Person couldn't be Oswald, but because Mikey had baited me with three or four same-hour, successive, short-and- assinine posts on a thread (after Kathy Beckett had sternly warned both of us in PMs to behave ourselves while was on her away-from-Internet vacation in Europe), waited for me to "rise" to said insults and to post something sarcastic in reply, and then, like a rat, very quickly deleted his offending posts so that Beckett wouldn't see them when she "checked in," but would see my outrageous reply, instead.

-- MWT  ;)




You replied:

"That is fantasy,  Thomasitayuritovich. While you allowed yourself, and still do, the freedom to post, ad nauseam, your Bagley/spy wars plug, you completely lost your cookies when I set-out to begin answering (yes, ad-nauseum) them with my Howard Olson document which, as John Newman messaged me, served the purpose of “spiking Pete’s career”. Pete is Pete Bagley, for clarity.

That’s it. You made the rest of that up."






Mike,

You don't remember the three, consecutive, short, inane, "covering," non-contributing-to-the-thread posts you made on May 20, 2017, on page 1 of my new thread "For Chris Newton, Larry Hancock, Tracy Parnell and Other Critically-Minded Members" ? ? ?

Here's a "copy and paste" of the pertinent part of that page, with your comments highlighted in bold text:



Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted unnecessarily abrasive post.
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Unnecessary, OT post
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Edited and posted for Mike Clark to prevaricate about.

-- MWT  ;)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on May 28, 2019, 10:56:42 AM
Manipulation is not your strong suit.

I still think it was a dude taking pictures with a camera.  And tell us more about Mary Pinchot Meyer, Albert. Inquiring minds want to know, uh...... have you taken a bath yet?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 28, 2019, 01:29:00 PM
Hughes and Lovelady in harmony, take a long hard look at his position pls Brian.
(https://i.imgur.com/UglnVrv.gif)

There is more than a hint of BWF in the above* and PM too but I'm wondering if Chris, or anyone really, could try and make them easier for us to see, if he/they haven't already.

*Girl in blue is bleeding into the area surrounding her and BWF was apparently wearing blue too(according to Bell) but look at Carl Jones' (the guy in front of BL)arm in front of the pillar, there's some nice definition there from that distance.  I think we see(we do) a flash of Buell's hand and blue shirted arm but apart from that I'd really like to know if we can let everyone see the person behind Lovelady in Hughes or not.  He/she/something seems to be fading in and out.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 29, 2019, 01:01:57 PM
I am hoping that someone might take a look at the Hughes frames and try to enhance what's behind Lovelady but I suppose it's common sense really that PrayerMAN('cause that is what Darnell tell's us) is already in position ten seconds before he was caught by Wiegman.  I doubt everyone can see the quick, little flash of the head shaped thing but it's interesting to see you swallowing it already Brian because I don't remember you talking about it much, if at all.


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 29, 2019, 01:14:03 PM
Nothing anyone has said, or will say, or can be made to say, will make me change my mind.  Untill I see hard, realible evidence, PM is exactly that, a man.  This Stanton stuff is complete nonsense and you all know it is and you know I know it is and I even know that you know I know it is because I done told you already, so don't even involve me in your games, I'll stay out of it if you let me because there's other interesting stuff to consider that we can agree or agree to dissagree on.  This he said she said stuff is for the birds.  HAND.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 30, 2019, 11:20:10 AM
But it's not clear whether he really heard what he knew was gunfire because of Darnell and his description of his reaction to Calvary's news.  Did he turn to tell Stanton how good Jackie looked?  That's not clear either, one interview he says he did but in another he mearly thought it to himself.  Did he ask Sarah "did she(GC) just say the President was hit"?  Or did he not? Again, depending on the interviews as a whole it's not clear and was she to his right or left?  Again, pick two interviews and you can have it either way to support your case.  It's a well known pattern, the more interviews they give the more answers we get to the same questions.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Michael Clark on May 31, 2019, 12:11:56 AM
No he hasn't -- you just made that up.

Frazier has consistently said that Stanton was to his left.  For example here at 53:18:


He even (supposedly) told you that she was to his left, before you tried to "correct" him with your nonsense.

It’s interesting that the interviewer asks several times about people with cameras, then specifically asks Frazier if anyone on the top step had a camera. It’s almost as if he was aware of the PM figure, back in 2002.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 31, 2019, 12:37:50 AM
Andrej has suggested that there are probably two people to Buell's left on the landing in Darnell, one behind the other.
(http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_02/Darnellstabilized2.gif.24644887b631910787b2f94850be49e5.gif)

Now people before you make a rash decision on that consider this, if you can find Calvary in the above then look at her left arm, that's not hers, that's part of yet another woman and what she is doing is, looking back down the street(if you know who first spotted that feel free to speak up).
IF Andrej's correct then IMO we are probably seeing the left side(our right) and very top of the head of the second person in the back(you might want to zoom in and take your time but it's not at all obvious).

Also I noticed Sandy's regrouped his and Tommy's work on Calvery and repackaged it with a full explanation and updates.  Not that our resident informer would ever pick up on anything positive coming from that side of the playground.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 31, 2019, 01:03:13 AM
It’s interesting that the interviewer asks several times about people with cameras, then specifically asks Frazier if anyone on the top step had a camera. It’s almost as if he was aware of the PM figure, back in 2002.

Yes, Gary was clearly exploring the idea there and he had good quality Wiegman frames at the SFM and probably in his private collection too well before this, so I'd say your hunch is correct Michael.  Personally I agree with others that the bright item is going to PM's mouth rather than his eye in Wiegman, not that that alone rules anything out.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 31, 2019, 01:28:58 AM
You know what else happens in that section, Frazier tells us that the lead motorcycle cops were deliberately making their bikes backfire seconds before the shooting started.  If true and let's say it was just one cop doing that because involving all four is just unnescessary, cruising down Houston and Elm making it pop, 30-20 seconds before similar sounds start up, couldn't that go some way to explaining the non reaction from almost everyone?  Pretty smart.
Anyway, however interesting it is to consider it for a minute, actually trusting revelations like this is just not an option for me anymore.  It's more likely garbled memories.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 31, 2019, 02:04:09 AM
Quote
There's no second person there...
You couldn't tell a real image of LHO from a cartoon what nut would rely on your eye?

Quote
There's no camera in Prayer Man's hands...What you are seeing is Stanton handling her purse while talking to Frazier as he described in his 2013 interview...

Your personal interpretation is about as legitimate to me as an alien abduction.

Quote
There's no intelligent follow-through on Larsen's confirmation of Calvery on the steps because the membership over there knows it leads to Prayer Man being Stanton...

Not for me it doesn't.  I say it's a man and that Frazier in Darnell is neither looking directly at him, talking to him, nor showing any outward signs of shock, surprise or even, life itself for that matter.
Calvery made it to the steps in less that 20, that's interesting in and of itself, also that both Baker and Smith heard her or her friend screaming and both cops headed directly toward them, that's all I need for now, I have no compulsion to hang some stringbean theory to that nice work, at least not yet.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on May 31, 2019, 08:40:06 AM
Brian you are without doubt one of the most interesting individuals around but the preaching I have to take exception to.  Anyway, just ignore the head for a second, that could be just the shadow line from the lintel, look at the left arm, to our right, that seems to be a different shade and it seems seperate from the front of the torso, further back, perhaps, is all I'm saying.
Also on another figure, going by it's head alone, it's perfectly understandable to me that someone would think that could be Lovelady still on the steps, because that head is a great match for exactly what we see in Wiegman and know to be Billy.  HAND.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on May 31, 2019, 08:31:36 PM
The person(Prayer) in Wiegman, next to Lovelady, is approx 2.5 inches shorter than Lovelady.
That person is on the 1st step down from the landing in Wiegman.
Lovelady, who is on the 1st step down from the landing moves to the 2nd step down.
The person(Prayer) in Darnell, if it's the same in Wiegman(approx 30 seconds between frames) has moved back on top of the landing, approx 2ft back from the landing edge.
My opinion of course.
(https://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/PM-Comp.gif)

Just looking at the film stills, I do not see anything that indicates PrayerPersonImage is on a lower step, and not on the landing in WFilm, versus standing on the landing in DFilm. Perhaps an explanation?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 01, 2019, 07:58:07 AM
Anyway, just ignore the head for a second, that could be just the shadow line from the lintel, look at the left arm, to our right, that seems to be a different shade and it seems seperate from the front of the torso, further back, perhaps, is all I'm saying.

Obviously, one should be referring to Andrej's gif I just reposted,  Other than that I just cannot help unless you, like I told you five times already, be specific about what you don't understand.  It suspect it's an IQ issue though and that's beyond my reach, I'll not explain every little detail to you over and over again whilst pointing to pictures Brian like a retraded 5yr old.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on June 01, 2019, 09:31:49 AM
You couldn't tell a real image of LHO from a cartoon what nut would rely on your eye?

Your personal interpretation is about as legitimate to me as an alien abduction.

Not for me it doesn't.  I say it's a man and that Frazier in Darnell is neither looking directly at him, talking to him, nor showing any outward signs of shock, surprise or even, life itself for that matter.
Calvery made it to the steps in less that 20, that's interesting in and of itself, also that both Baker and Smith heard her or her friend screaming and both cops headed directly toward them, that's all I need for now, I have no compulsion to hang some stringbean theory to that nice work, at least not yet.

Again..... I believe it WAS a dude taking pictures with a camera, perhaps someone off the street to get out of the sun for a better shot of the prez' going by.  It wasn't Oswald though.  He was busy upstairs shooting the president.  Get over it, folks.  This whole conversation is nothing but a glorified parlor game resembling 'groundhog day'.. How many times has Duncan removed threads like this?  And for good reason, too.  Checkmate, Albert.  You're off the board.......
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 02, 2019, 05:00:33 AM
Again..... I believe it WAS a dude taking pictures with a camera...

That's at least the tenth time you've said that in this thread.

This whole conversation is nothing but a glorified parlor game resembling 'groundhog day'...

Uh huh.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on June 04, 2019, 09:37:29 AM
Well here's your big chance wolfman, show me one.

This....... is a job for........ Ralph Cinque !!!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Matthew Finch on June 04, 2019, 11:16:02 AM
This....... is a job for........ Ralph Cinque !!!

Careful Mark - say it twice more and he may actually be summoned!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 04, 2019, 06:14:21 PM
Oh okay, that actually helps, so, if Molina were say, 5.8'(which I doubt he was) then from my POV his hands would have to be between 4-5" above his head to hit the shadow.  You really want to continue with this?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 04, 2019, 06:29:22 PM
Enough jibberjabber...

I am very aware of the films that show cops and others stepping up onto the landing because that's exactly what I'm talking about, link us to one that proves your point(here's a tip btw, free of charge, try to find a clip that shows a short lady about 5.5 or less, oitherwise you're xxxxxx).

Stay with me anyway, show me footage that "proves the lintel's shadow wouldn't hit the head of everyone over 5.5', as soon as they stepped up onto the landing" and I'll be in your debt.

Show me or gtfoomf.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 05, 2019, 11:20:40 AM
Ok, first of all, well done for finding an example and something that wasn't in this thread, which is a lil' weird, since I based my conclusion on numerous examples that were posted here.
But seriously, it's too hard to tell in that form, perhaps a looped gif might prove you correct but did you notice it's quite a short guy?
Anyway if you can tell his hair from the shadow from that source alone, more power to you, I however cannot.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 06, 2019, 06:55:34 AM
He's not on the landing because Stanton's not beside him, she moved to the street that's why she's not beside him and that's why he's not on the landing because Lee H Oswald rules and Bart is gay.  Cowabunga.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on June 07, 2019, 10:45:55 AM
It was a dude taking pictures with a (movie?) camera.  That's what I think.  And my opinion is just as important as yours, Albert (but you can call me Ralph !! LOL)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 15, 2019, 06:40:38 AM
...
The PrayerPerson is in my conclusion, representing a female

Yes you've said but you've still yet to explain why you think it's female despite me personally asking you five times.  Now's your golden opportunity, we're all ears.  You have the floo-ur.

Now, with a history changing event like the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, stories can be told, and articles written, likely by professional story tellers and article writers. And possibly a book, or several books, can be written and then sold. Maybe even a movie or two can be made.

Do I detect a kooky theory?  An ulterior motive yee thinks?  Sacré bleu.
So how would it change anything, I'm curious.  Could it be because, no, in your quirky view LHO is actually guilty now?  What happened to you Larry?  I thought you were on our team.

Testimony and sworn statements offer  ONLY CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence...
In any event, amatuer(at best) "research" from one "JFK researcher" who no one agrees with on anything has concocted the lamest "circumstantial evidence" indicative of SarahStanton as being Prayer Man.

FTFY(google it Tommy)

Although the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory continues to be just that, a theory, said PrayerWomanImage identity conclusions are based on provable reliable indicative evidence.

Only in your Youtube dreams.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 16, 2019, 02:06:14 AM
The reason you have so many, many little pots on the fire is because you have not one single thing that proves Stanton is PM.  This is so obvious I feel ridiculous just typing it but this is typically the level of debate only you can inspire.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 16, 2019, 02:08:01 AM
Did you respond to me when I asked you how it's possible for you to mistake a cartoon for a real image of PM, I mean LHO?
Ten chances I gave you and nothing but silence.

Here's another, are you getting professional help with all this anti-social stuff?  This hypocrisy is off the freakin' chart and quite troubling actually.

Eleven and counting...
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 16, 2019, 02:37:38 AM
Shadows in action:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tOaCp331tHfElzjdPQH_JWCAcOameGem/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tOaCp331tHfElzjdPQH_JWCAcOameGem/view?usp=sharing)

QFT
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 16, 2019, 02:53:34 AM
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/martin-and-hughes-synch-gif.gif?w=911&h=343)

Watch the lady briefly lean into the shadow then back out again.  Around 5.4' I guess?  Seem fair?  Two inches higher then and she wouldn't have had to lean into it because she barely moves and it touches her.  No balderdash, no gobbledegook or plain ole BS, this is kid's stuff.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 16, 2019, 04:39:59 PM
The same Altgens Lovelean in Wiegman, no assistance required.

(https://i.imgur.com/roh0gmA.jpg)

Head seems a little straighter so he's probably coming out of it but that's it, it's still there, his left shoulder lowered.

Btw Brian, don't ever mention shadow on BL again until you abandon your new behind the top of railing theory.

The other Lovelady frame doesn't show what we think is Frazier correct??
So which blob is it Tommy and what makes you think Frazier's head has changed position by Darnell?
(https://i.imgur.com/BcozPdP.jpg)
Seems to be facing the same way to me, if I'm seeing it right.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 16, 2019, 06:14:06 PM
Quote MODIFICATION is to me among the worst of the worst of Forum violations.

1. I made it clear that I had "Fixed It".  I'm tired of you repeating the same BS with no aim at discussion, I saved myself some valuable time, since most of it was took up with the next point.
2. I refuse to reprint these asanine italics and bold type in every other word you use.  You violate the English langauge at every opportunity.
3. If you want to jazz your posts up just do a little research first, it actually works and that's the only way your posts will ever be interesting.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 16, 2019, 06:32:42 PM
Tickin' away, the moments, that make up a dull day..
(https://i.imgur.com/JEazTxB.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 16, 2019, 06:59:20 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/EklMRzg.jpg)

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

Prettiest gal this sidea Mississippi.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 16, 2019, 07:07:59 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/JEazTxB.jpg)
Take those blinkers off Brian, my marks are in line with the bottom of both men's necks as best I can tell.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on June 16, 2019, 07:16:27 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/9YbFyo7.jpg)
Quotes... taken from this very thread, context is all yours.

Still Brian's best contribution IMHO.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 19, 2019, 11:10:51 PM
Ask Iacoletti where he thinks Gloria Calvery and her three colleagues were standing "on the north side of Elm Street, about halfway between Houston Street and The Triple Underpass," during the motorcade.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/d5mI2F3MxCTJu/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Matthew Finch on June 25, 2019, 12:06:41 PM
Research? Have you published any works? Been to college? Physics or ballistics major? Photo interpretation skills learned while in or working for the US Armed Services?

Where are any and all videos, transcripts and phone conversations you've had with any and all witnesses now living or past deceased?

These are only a few questions I have, for now.

Perhaps it is you who should start at the beginning.

Most of my questions were found in my original post.

It is my understanding that Brian doesn't have the capability to post any imagery - although I'm flummoxed as to why that is the case.

He claimed he had/has a problem with his computer.

No doubt he's talking about the one behind his eyes, oui?  He can only use words, Mr. Finch.  Haven't you noticed?  Sigh+

PrayerPerson, IMHO, was a dude taking pictures with a camera.  But it wasn't Oswald.  He was busy upstairs shooting the president.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 27, 2019, 05:56:32 PM
What happened to Jeff Stanton's posts?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Frederick Clements on June 29, 2019, 10:34:28 AM
Just remember that Oswald's own wife confirmed that Prayer Man is Lee when shown the Prayer Man photo.


Fred
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 29, 2019, 01:03:44 PM
Bart Kamp is actually a fantastic researcher, and without a doubt, he is one of, if not, the best researcher currently operating in the JFK research community.

Apart from some sporadic mutually observed unofficial and unacknowledged harmless and mostly tongue in cheek uncomplimentary banter
back and forth between him and I, I have absolutely no problem with him.


He doesn't bore people with perpetual and repetitive blurb that could almost lead the reader to the point of losing the will to live.

He just gets on with it, presents his research with great precision, presenting and posting the documents and images that are being referred to,
and that's exactly how it should be.

Although I disagree with his conclusions, I admire his honesty, his persistence and his patience in his relentless search for his truth.

Wells said, Duncan. I hope "what ever his name is today" pays particular attention to your third sentence.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 30, 2019, 01:19:36 AM
Hey BD, RTFM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on June 30, 2019, 08:48:35 AM
No, you actually can't.  This is pareidolia and wishful thinking.
......

"Obnoxious troll" ?????  Pot, meet kettle.

I still say PrayerPerson was a dude taking pictures with a camera, possibly someone off the street to get a higher shot of the president passing by, as well as getting out of the direct sunlight.  That is my educated guess, no more, no less.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Frederick Clements on July 07, 2019, 11:10:42 AM
You didn't "see" any of these "obese features" until you found out that Stanton was obese.  Funny that.

 He seems to have super vision. He can see all sorts of things that the rest of us cannot see. Purses, buttons, obese arms etc.

 Fred
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Matthew Finch on July 08, 2019, 12:02:26 PM
He can't see much of anything at the moment it would appear as he seems to be suspended.

I agree fully though, one simply cannot suggest much about any of Prayer-man's / Prayer-woman's features from the photographic evidence we have available currently. ANY position put forward can only be considered a THEORY, not FACT.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 11, 2019, 12:53:30 AM
Y
[i}[i}i}[i}[i}{font=comic sans ms{{size=10pt][u} {b][b}[u}[i}[u} [b}[b}[u}[i} [i}[u}[u}[i}[i}[b}[u}As a reminder:[u}[b}[i}


I just want to show folks what you see when you go to quote one of our other Stanton supporters.  This is just one line, with three words in it.  What is he on?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 11, 2019, 09:33:54 PM
It's almost like they are the kooks and we are the straight one's.
We had people that knew Stanton personally, family members, tell us[Brian] that PM is not her.  Brian went into full denial mode as usual but with Larry, it didn't even register.  He claimed he'd never heard it despite listening to the taped interview, queried it when I brought it up but has never since actually admitted it's implications dispite me pointing it to him directly.  He appears to take himself seriously at least, his insights quoted by himself more often than not.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 12, 2019, 10:36:57 PM
Y
I just want to show folks what you see when you go to quote one of our other Stanton supporters.  This is just one line, with three words in it.  What is he on?

Aside from your apparent need to personally attack, just what is it in print that you are disputing? Just what is your claim? Evidence?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 13, 2019, 04:48:37 AM
No, LarryTrotterImage, these are your words as you keep re-posting "reminders" over and over again:

Notably, research has now developed evidence indicative of SarahStanton as being the person represented by Prayer PersonImage aka PrayerWomanImage.

What research?  What evidence?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 13, 2019, 08:18:04 AM
Aside from your apparent need to personally attack, just what is it in print that you are disputing? Just what is your claim? Evidence?

The reason you always add some flowery font to your posts is because you have nothing of substance otherwise.  That's the only way you can make your posts "interesting", with flowers.  And you refuse to engage your critics in a meaningful manner, something Brian could never be accused of(for the most part).  Grow up/a pair, engage and leave the daffodils at home, this is the internet, you will get crap from time to time, you can handle it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 13, 2019, 06:03:11 PM
No, LarryTrotterImage, these are your words as you keep re-posting "reminders" over and over again:

What research?  What evidence?


As stated, and copied by Iacoletti, Notably, research has now developed evidence indicative of SarahStanton as being the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, aka PrayerWomanImage.

So, is it your claim that there has been no research? Or, is it your claim that there has not been any evidence developed that is indicative of SarahStanton being the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, aka PrayerWomanImage?

If so, can you provide evidence indicative of the validity of said claim? You know, things like SarahStanton was not in that spot during the filming, because she was somewhere else, and because someone else was there at the time. Perhaps, you can review the almost 500 pages in this thread, just to make sure of the validity of your claim. And, try to pay full attention to Scully, especially when filing your repetitious claims.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 13, 2019, 07:54:55 PM
As stated, and copied by Iacoletti, Notably, research has now developed evidence indicative of SarahStanton as being the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, aka PrayerWomanImage.

If you have any valid evidence of Prayer person being Stanton then either present it or stop claiming it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 14, 2019, 07:24:35 PM
As stated in the summation, Notably, research has now developed evidence indicative of SarahStanton as being the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, aka PrayerWomanImage.

So, is it your claim that there has been no research? Or, is it your claim that there has not been any evidence developed that is indicative of SarahStanton being the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, aka PrayerWomanImage?

If so, can you provide evidence indicative of the validity of said claim? You know, things like SarahStanton was not in that spot during the filming, because she was somewhere else, and because someone else was there at the time. Perhaps, you can review the almost 500 pages in this thread, just to make sure of the validity of your claim. And, try to pay full attention to Scully, especially when filing your repetitious claims.
If you have any valid evidence of Prayer person being Stanton then either present it or stop claiming it.

If indeed you can provide a specific quote regarding said specific claim, please do so, as I do not recall making it. As for research developed indicative evidence that SarahStanton is the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, it has already been presented!
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 14, 2019, 11:38:59 PM
If indeed you can provide a specific quote regarding said specific claim, please do so, as I do not recall making it. As for research developed indicative evidence that SarahStanton is the person represented by PrayerPersonImage, it has already been presented!

Presented by whom, and when?  Be specific.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on July 15, 2019, 06:55:47 AM
LOL.  I wish I had a nickel for everything you swear you saw once, but can't seem to find.
........

(https://thescamdog.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/nickels.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 16, 2019, 11:46:05 PM
Again as it once was...Once again as it was...

Larry, give it a rest.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 17, 2019, 12:11:06 AM
Sandy Larsen: 

By tweaking the picture, Chris ended up with a couple of dots that could be taken as eyes and a dark area that appeared to be long hair. What he and others -- including myself -- saw was no different than objects seen in clouds"

Exactly right, Jeff.  And Stancak and LeDoux showed multiple "faces" in the same image.

(https://thejfktruthmatters.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/4heads_wf.jpg)

(https://i37.servimg.com/u/f37/17/60/28/90/facevs11.png)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 17, 2019, 12:23:42 AM
Why, I'll bet there is 100's of faces in there if you "look at it just right"

Wait, I think I see an elephant trunk and a bear cub in there too. Nah can't be. Can it? Was a TSBD employee a part time zookeeper too? LMAO! :'(

Bart Kamp also used some serious "metadata" to "prove" that there was a guy in dungarees pushing a wheelbarrow.

(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 17, 2019, 02:03:32 AM
Uncanny resemblance, wouldn't you say?   :D

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/pp-stanton.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 17, 2019, 05:40:43 PM
Notably, research has now developed evidence indicative of SarahStanton as being the person represented by Prayer PersonImage aka PrayerWomanImage.

This is not true, no matter how many times you post it.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 17, 2019, 09:07:43 PM
Notably, research has now developed evidence indicative of SarahStanton as being the person represented by Prayer PersonImage aka PrayerWomanImage.

This is not true, no matter how many times you post it.

The burden of proof for JohnIacoletti's statement is on Mr Iacoletti, no matter how many times he wishes to claim another poster is being untruthful.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 17, 2019, 09:16:56 PM
The burden of proof for JohnIacoletti's statement is on Mr Iacoletti, no matter how many times he wishes to claim another poster is being untruthful.

No, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that "research has now developed evidence indicative of SarahStanton as being the person represented by Prayer PersonImage".  What research?  What evidence?  Are you going to avoid the question again?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Matthew Finch on July 19, 2019, 08:57:30 AM
Ha! Bloody superb, Barry! Loving the added quotes. :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 23, 2019, 07:47:52 AM
As previously posted:

"Notably, research has now developed evidence indicative of SarahStanton as being the person represented by PrayerPersonImage aka PrayerWomanImage."

This is not true, no matter how many times you post it.

The burden of proof for JohnIacoletti's statement is on Mr Iacoletti, no matter how many times he wishes to claim another poster is being untruthful.

No, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that "research has now developed evidence indicative of SarahStanton as being the person represented by Prayer PersonImage".  What research?  What evidence?  Are you going to avoid the question again?

Research(noun):diligent and systematic inquiry into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, etc.
Evidence(noun):the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Indicating(verb):to be a sign of;betoken;evidence;show:
Indicative(adjective):serving as a sign or indication of something.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
https://i2.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/WH_Vol22_0353a-FBI-STATEMENT-March-18-1964.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/211163-fbi-interview.png
https://i1.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/WH_Vol22_0351b.jpg

As noted, a partial rendering of research developed indicative evidence that  indicates SarahStanton is the person represented by PrayerPersonImage aka PrayerWomanImage.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on July 24, 2019, 09:52:57 AM
I still think it was a dude taking pictures with a camera.  Couldn't that be possible?  Just from looking at that brief film footage/stills of him holding up what I believe is a camera?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Rick Plant on July 25, 2019, 01:59:11 AM
To me there is a figure holding an object but it's not clear what that object is. It's interesting to read everybody's take on this subject  but there is no way somebody can 100% conclusively determine who a figure is when the figure is a blob or a heavily distorted image.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on July 25, 2019, 09:46:55 PM
I still think it was a dude taking pictures with a camera.  Couldn't that be possible?  Just from looking at that brief film footage/stills of him holding up what I believe is a camera?

Mark,

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

-- MWT  ;)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Brown on July 26, 2019, 01:31:22 AM
On film....

Oswald: I work in that building.

Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?

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


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

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

So, who cares who that person was?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on July 26, 2019, 04:02:46 AM
On film....

Oswald: I work in that building.

Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?

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


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

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

So, who cares who that person was?

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

Question for Bill Brown.:

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

....I shared the following details with Jim DiEugenio on November 15, 2015. It appears since then DiEugenio preferred to keep you from awareness of these facts.
Could it be because these facts are less prejudicial to Ruth Paine's rep?....
Kindly respond there, especially if you are familiar with past suspicions of Ruth's work in Nicaragua. Thank you.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 28, 2019, 12:47:32 PM
As I do not recall ever affording any EvidentiaryValue to the as presented PrayerPersonImage FacialFeatureEnhancement, often attributed to ChrisDavidson, perhaps BarryPollard can provide any documented posting as confirmation for my having done so(?)

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

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

You never corrected your mistake or commented on it again.  Would you care to do so now or talk on it's significance to Brian's overall agenda?  I've already guessed it's a no, so there you go, a chance to prove me wrong, a first.
I can think of no other significant evidence that Brian produced in that "interview" and that's what you call research?  A diligent and systematic inquiry, it was not.  It was agenda driven but that's something else you rather conveniently failed to pick up on right?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 28, 2019, 01:29:12 PM
As noted, a partial rendering of research developed indicative evidence that  indicates SarahStanton is the person represented by PrayerPersonImage aka PrayerWomanImage.

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

Witness testimony doesn't mean as much as it used to.  You're stuck in the past and you won't even begin to look for a way out of that nasty little hole you are caught in.  Even if the prosectution wasn't biased as it was, you'd still be playing a dangerous game by throwing the word "evidence" around when referring to testimony.  Circumstantial is what it is, at best.  We have far better stuff pointing us all to the Grassy Knoll.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on July 28, 2019, 01:47:06 PM
Mark,

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

-- MWT  ;)

It's a good question.  From the options put forward, white enamel makes the most sense for me at this time, despite the procimity of that discarded pop bottle found near, what would have been, Oswald's right foot.  "Camera" seems to be lifted toward his mouth too.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on July 30, 2019, 12:05:30 PM
It's a good question.  From the options put forward, white enamel makes the most sense for me at this time, despite the procimity of that discarded pop bottle found near, what would have been, Oswald's right foot.  "Camera" seems to be lifted toward his mouth too.

In my humble opinion, it WAS a camera.  I believe this was someone that came off the street, not a TSBD employee at all, but just a dude that wanted a better resolution of the prez' a-goin' by..... and then...... bye-bye.  The Crime of the Century.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on July 30, 2019, 09:46:50 PM
Bill Newman pointing the wrong way.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on July 31, 2019, 06:50:48 PM
As previously posted:

"Notably, research has now developed evidence indicative of SarahStanton as being the person represented by PrayerPersonImage aka PrayerWomanImage."

Research(noun):diligent and systematic inquiry into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, etc.
Evidence(noun):the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Indicating(verb):to be a sign of;betoken;evidence;show:
Indicative(adjective):serving as a sign or indication of something.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
https://i2.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/WH_Vol22_0353a-FBI-STATEMENT-March-18-1964.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/211163-fbi-interview.png
https://i1.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/WH_Vol22_0351b.jpg

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

As I have previously stated, I make no claim to be a "Researcher", but maintain that I remain a "Student of The Research" into the murder by assassination of JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr, and the critical wounding of JohnBowdenConnallyJr, as well as the murder of JdTippit, and the murder of LeeHarveyOswald two days later.

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

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

Perhaps BarryPollard considers himself a "Researcher", if so maybe he can articulate the difference between his expertise and that of "Half a Researcher". But, either way, if he wishes to dispute sworn statements and testimony by witnesses, unless he can provide indicative evidence confirming the validity of said dispute, his statement is just an opinion that said witnesses are either lying or mistaken.

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

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

I make no claim of expertise and/or experience in image manipulation, nor do I desire such, but I stand on my previous statement confirming, paraphrasing, "I am unable to embrace the authenticity of the PrayerPersonImage 'FacialFeatureEnhancement' often attributed to ChrisDavidson, nor do I afford any 'EvidentiaryValue' for said 'Enhancement'.

BarryPollard's reference to a "never corrected mistake" needs to be explained. Perhaps a reference to an expressed opinion as to the meaning of an interview comment? No surprise, "My Take" and that of BarryPollard will quite often differ.

When BarryPollard states, "I can think of no other significant evidence that Brian produced in that 'interview' and that's what you call research? A diligent and systematic inquiry, it was not. It was agenda driven but that's something else you rather conveniently failed to pick up on right?", I do wonder, as I wander, if there are really a couple of questions asked, or just statement add-ons.

In any event, the referred to "interview" contained much indicative evidentiary information that indicates that SarahDeanStanton is indeed the person represented by PrayerPersonImage. However, the post being replied to by BarryPollard was primarily in reference to "witness testimony", and not to the "interview".
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 01, 2019, 06:15:00 PM
Bill Newman pointing the wrong way.


"Bill Newman pointing the wrong way"?

It appears to me as if he was using his index finger to indicate witnessing a wound to JFK's temple area.

As I recall, a fairly common way of pointing for persons in his age group, and in that era, at least in eastern Texas.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on August 02, 2019, 10:49:00 AM
"Bill Newman pointing the wrong way"?

It appears to me as if he was using his index finger to indicate witnessing a wound to JFK's temple area.

As I recall, a fairly common way of pointing for persons in his age group, and in that era, at least in eastern Texas.

Yes, Larry. But he was pointing to his left temple, whereas JFK was shot in the right temple, according to the spokesman at Parkland,
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 02, 2019, 09:36:48 PM
Bill Newman pointing the wrong way.


 :)
"Bill Newman pointing the wrong way"?

It appears to me as if he was using his index finger to indicate witnessing a wound to JFK's temple area.

As I recall, a fairly common way of pointing for persons in his age group, and in that era, at least in eastern Texas.
Yes, Larry. But he was pointing to his left temple, whereas JFK was shot in the right temple, according to the spokesman at Parkland,

Did you, Ray, happen to notice that a very upset BillNewman was trying to confirm what he had just witnessed as President JohnKennedySr had been mortally wounded and Governor JohnConnallyJr seriously wounded just a few feet away from, and well within bloodstain proximity of, himself and his wife Gayle, and their two young sons?

And, did you, Ray, happen to notice the interview was being conducted by a visibly upset WFAA-TV ProgramDirector/Anchor JayWatson (1925-2001), who himself was nearby and witnessed the chaos in the aftermath of the shooting?

And Ray, did you notice that while being interviewed, BillNewman was holding his younger son, age 2, with JayWatson, in an apparent effort to provide sufficient audio for the interview, positioned against Mr Newman's right arm and holding the microphone next to said arm upper/bicep area, thus blocking mobility of that arm?

Also Ray, as I recall, BillNewman, when asked, indicated that to him it seemed that the shots had been fired from behind his location along, and on the north side of the westbound Elm St curb. And therefor, the direction of travel of the Motorcade should indicate shots fired from the right side of the Limousine Occupants, assuming of course, that there were no entry wounds to President Kennedy's left temple area.

In any event, perhaps an ambiguous wound location indication, but not a wrong wound location indication.

EDIT: This posted Reply is strictly in response to the RayMitcham posted Reply, as quoted, in reference to the head wound location indication by BillNewman, as seen in the video of the witness interview conducted at the WFAA-TV station by JaYWatson. It is not meant to represent my thoughts and/or conclusions about how the fatal wounding of JFKSr and critical wounding of JBCJr occurred, as well as from where the shots originated.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 03, 2019, 01:38:20 AM
Oswald should have had his usual Dr. Pepper, since as it turns out, things didn't really 'go better with Coke' for him, now did they  :D
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Patrick Jackson on August 04, 2019, 10:18:37 PM
                                                                                             


Which clip is correct? Take a look at 18:25 time mark.
Was Sarah standing left or right? Looking at BWF hand watch and wedding ring, seems Sarah was standing to his left?
http://youtu.be/i5OnBary KampATeSE (http://youtu.be/i5OnBary KampATeSE)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 07, 2019, 08:52:07 PM
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
https://i2.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/WH_Vol22_0353a-FBI-STATEMENT-March-18-1964.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/211163-fbi-interview.png
https://i1.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/WH_Vol22_0351b.jpg

Sorry, Larry.  None of your helpful links point to anything which indicates who prayerperson might be.  Try again.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 07, 2019, 10:27:56 PM
Why did DetectiveFritz testify that LHO had stated that he had been on the 2nd floor as the Motorcade passed the TSBD Bldg, but then "allow" himself to "re-testify" that LHO was actually having lunch on the 1st Floor instead?

Because it was pointed out to Fritz that in Fritz's own interrogation report he wrote "first floor".

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/029/29104/images/img_29104_2_200.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Rick Plant on August 08, 2019, 12:47:14 AM
Is there a high quality photo to determine if prayer woman is indeed Sarah Stanton?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Matthew Finch on August 08, 2019, 12:47:19 PM
Is there a high quality photo to determine if prayer woman is indeed Sarah Stanton?

Crikey Rick - I sure hope one day soon one appears to resolve this either way. There's only so much more 'linguistically forensic' misinformation I can listen to.  :'(
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 08, 2019, 05:32:05 PM
Because it was pointed out to Fritz that in Fritz's own interrogation report he wrote "first floor".

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/029/29104/images/img_29104_2_200.jpg)

So is the provided type written page, referenced by JohnIacolettiInsult, "Fritz's own interrogation report he wrote"? And, did DPD Detective WillFritz write "first floor" on his own, written by him, interrogation report? If so, when was "Fritz's own interrogation report he wrote first floor" on written?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 08, 2019, 09:23:17 PM
...if he wishes to dispute sworn statements and testimony by witnesses, unless he can provide indicative evidence confirming the validity of said dispute, his statement is just an opinion that said witnesses are either lying or mistaken.

You have openly admitted to me in this thread that you are not interested in talking about or even looking into why witnessees in general are more often than not, full of crap.  That is not opinion Larry, it's been researched, over a lifetime and it's been proven time and time again but it's clear to me, since it's all you have, you dare not do what is expected of you, as a competent student but here, once more I'll give you a lead.
https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/loftus/loftusCV.pdf

Now you show me something as to why I should trust that these people are not just repeating what they heard elsewhere or telling the law exactly what they want to hear?

I make no claim of expertise and/or experience in image manipulation, nor do I desire such, but I stand on my previous statement confirming, paraphrasing, "I am unable to embrace the authenticity of the PrayerPersonImage 'FacialFeatureEnhancement' often attributed to ChrisDavidson, nor do I afford any 'EvidentiaryValue' for said 'Enhancement'.

You know nothing about it and want to know nothing about it, so your opinion is less than worthless, Something we agree on. See?

BarryPollard's reference to a "never corrected mistake" needs to be explained.

I already gave you your quote in that last post, you "... thought the "NOT HER" comment was about scarflady".  I told you you were mistaken at that time but you never followed it up or commented on it again.

In any event, the referred to "interview" contained much indicative evidentiary information that indicates that SarahDeanStanton is indeed the person represented by PrayerPersonImage.

I'm glad you think so.  Maybe one day when you feel up to it you'd like to reveal exactly what you are referring to because I have absolutely no idea.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Rick Plant on August 09, 2019, 01:41:49 AM
A high quality photo will sure end all speculation.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Rick Plant on August 09, 2019, 01:43:55 AM
Sounds good Brian. Are you going to post the film here? I don't think it's dishonest to ask for a high quality photo since it's terribly difficult to decipher the figure in the current photo.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on August 09, 2019, 03:29:46 AM
Sounds good Brian. Are you going to post the film here? I don't think it's dishonest to ask for a high quality photo since it's terribly difficult to decipher the figure in the current photo.

Dear Rick,

Should be easy to find.

Hey, maybe one's available on eBay!

-- MWT  ;)



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Tom Scully on August 09, 2019, 03:53:40 AM
Dear Rick,

Should be easy to find.

Hey, maybe one's available on eBay!

-- MWT  ;)

You can say that again! Lotsa quality historical stuff on Ebay.  http://pw.com (http://prayerwoman.com)
Welcome back !
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on August 09, 2019, 04:49:04 AM
You can say that again! Lotsa quality historical stuff on Ebay.  http://pw.com (http://prayerwoman.com)
Welcome back !

Richards J. Heuristics "Five Ways To Giggle," too!

Starring Clark Kent as Bozo the Clown!

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on August 09, 2019, 05:43:01 PM
At least consider turning the other cheek?

He can't.  Albert's other cheek is tortured by hemmorhoids.  And he won't post that, Meat Loaf !!!    LOL
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 09, 2019, 07:22:01 PM
Is there a high quality photo to determine if prayer woman is indeed Sarah Stanton?

Is there a high quality photo to determine if PrayerWoman(Image) is indeed not representative of SarahStanton?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 10, 2019, 03:41:01 AM
The burden of proof for JohnIacoletti's statement is on Mr Iacoletti, no matter how many times he wishes to claim another poster is being untruthful.
Did not say that you [the member] are untruthful...but rather that the claim has just not been demonstrated as definitely someone or another. No matter how you stack it--- the identity of the unknown person remains quite unknown. Else why are there some 5000 posts here on the subject?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 11, 2019, 11:33:05 PM
Wanda said "SHE was too pretty to be my grandmother"...Which means... these are her first attempts at photo interpretation.  Why else would she say that monster is prettier than both her and her grandmother?  Why not show her some images of the GK perhaps she can find Ruby, Hunt, Jimmy Carter and OJ for us? 
If you want to impress us with what a person sees in a particular image anytime in the future, do a few tests first and let us be the judge.
I'm guessing they are both big UFO fans btw, like yourself.

Rosa told you Sarah was 500lbs at the time of the assassination. You then told her to keep quite and continued to spread falsehoods about PM being Sarah.  Why not just come out and admit it now?  I know you want to, you're almost there.
Rosa also tried to tell you she saw someone else, in another of your FB page images, that actually looked like Sarah.  What did you do with that?  Once again you shut her up.

I've never actually come across anything this bad before and Trotter has the gall to call it research.  WTH is going on in here?
I know... JHC!  Kennedy counterinsurgence.
It's Lee Fxxxxxx Oswald!
Go $µ¦ť in your hat.
(http://i.imgur.com/EWiefQN.gif)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Barry Pollard on August 12, 2019, 12:05:34 AM
The more information Wanda gives him about Sarah the less he wants.
https://youtu.be/v0fTAsMdCHU?t=15m7s (https://youtu.be/v0fTAsMdCHU?t=15m7s)
youtu.be/v0fTAsMdCHU?t=15m7s

She can't be more than 300lbs.
YES SHE WAS.
That's enough, we don't need that much detail.
Did she dye her hair?
YES BUT A LIGHT COLOR.
Don't worry about it.
THIS LOOKS LIKE SARAH.
Let's talk about something else.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESEARCH.

(https://i.gifer.com/7fmY.gif)

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on August 12, 2019, 08:47:10 AM
Okay.

Thanks for the heads-up.
Brian just called someone dishonest. But now you think it's "ok"?
The pattern continues the way I read it, that is awful
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on August 12, 2019, 09:42:33 AM
Brian just called someone dishonest. But now you think it's "ok"?
The pattern continues the way I read it, that is awful

Regardless of the fact that I no longer read Brian's longer and (imho) ranting, "There Were Two CIA-Controlled Oswalds In The TSBD!" posts, when one reads this short one carefully, one realizes that he isn't actually calling Iacoletti "dishonest" or ... gasp ... even a "liar," here.

D'oh
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on August 12, 2019, 10:51:39 AM
Correction: It's MacRae  ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Macrae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Macrae)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Macrae_(actor) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Macrae_(actor))


Must be a member o' the Boii Tribe, old boyo.

Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 13, 2019, 01:56:11 AM
This thread is too large now to find the pertinent facts--Who saw Oswald where?
Odds have it that he was eating lunch on the lower floor apparently disinterested in the parade outside.
If Prayer Person was Oswald where are subsequent photos showing a curious Lee gazing around wondering what had happened?
Read my thread on Charles Givens?---The WC had to have someone claim to have seen Oswald on the 6th floor before the shots and found the lying Givens to add salt to the Lone Gunman Theory.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on August 13, 2019, 06:01:24 AM
Regardless of the fact that I no longer read Brian's longer and (imho) ranting, "There Were Two CIA-Controlled Oswalds In The TSBD!" posts, when one reads this short one carefully, one realizes that he isn't actually calling Iacoletti "dishonest" or ... gasp ... even a "liar," here.

D'oh
Why don't you read Brian's hard work? It's just misguided. That means you guys should get along and be misguided together
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on August 13, 2019, 08:20:53 AM
Why don't you read Brian's hard work? It's just misguided. That means you guys should get along and be misguided together

Peter,

Nah, like you, Brian believes the evil, evil XXX killed JFK.

LOL

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Larry Trotter on August 13, 2019, 06:56:04 PM
Brian...It very well may be. However, notice that someone will always jump in and counter this claim.
I consider myself 'reasonable and objective'. Unfortunately, I do not possess the 'skill' to appraise horribly blurry photographs.

Despite constant denial, indicative evidentiary information has been posted, including on this thread, that indicates that PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building. And, based on witness accounts, as well as related events, the most likely person represented by PPI is SarahDeanStanton (1922-1992). I do not rely on any appraisal of "horribly blurry photographs", that are actually from a MotionPictureCamera, hand held by a CameraMan some distance away, riding in/on the seat of a moving Motorcade ConvertibleVehicle as said Vehicle drove past the TSBD Bldg Elm St EntrancePortal following about six (+/-) other Vehicles behind the LincolnConvertibleLimousine carrying President JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr (1917-1963), accompanied by Firstlady JacquelineBouvierKennedy (1929-1994), and Governor JohnBowdenConnallyJr (1917-1993), accompanied by FirstLady IdanellBrillConnally (1919-2006), that was being driven by SSA WilliamRobertGreer (1909-1985), assisted by SSA RoyHermanKellerman (1915-1984).

As I recall, The PrayerPersonImage IdentificationDispute became an issue after a claim, some 50 years, half a century, after the Assassination Of JFKSr, that PPI represented LeeHarveyOswald. My response was, and still is, How can it be possible for the most famous Accused LoneGunmanAssassin ever to have been standing outside the front door on the FirstFloor EntranceLanding, among numerous witnesses that knew who he was, instead of on the sixth floor firing shots at the Motorcade, and yet was unnoticed for the 50 years?

Therefor, in seeking the proper identification of PPI, and doing some research along with study of research by others, utilizing process of elimination of possibilities, it is my drawn conclusion, based on available indicative evidentiary information, that the most likely person represented by PPI is SarahDeanStanton. Not standing in the PPI location during the shooting and/or filming of the Portal area itself does not place LHO on the sixth floor as a LGA, and the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter indicates a timing problem issue for him being a LGA, on the sixth floor or anywhere else, IMO.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on August 14, 2019, 06:19:39 AM
Peter,

Nah, like you, Brian believes the evil, evil XXX killed JFK.

LOL

-- MWT  ;)
Wrong, Brian just believes something that doesn't matter, where everything you talk about is just a permanent daydream your in. At least with LSD, you would have had an excuse but unlike Frank, they wouldn't have to sneak it into your drink. This is because you would have wanted to be a part of any CIA experiment that involves escaping from reality. If you think Jerry Garcia is still alive you were apart of the experiment. Good stuff
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on August 14, 2019, 02:11:36 PM
Wrong, Brian just believes something that doesn't matter, where everything you talk about is just a permanent daydream your in. At least with LSD, you would have had an excuse but unlike Frank, they wouldn't have to sneak it into your drink. This is because you would have wanted to be a part of any CIA experiment that involves escaping from reality. If you think Jerry Garcia is still alive you were apart of the experiment. Good stuff

Dear Peter,

Thanks for all the kind words.

*whereas

** you're

Do you think Jerry lives, Peter?

How about Elvis?

Kurt Cobain?

Question:  What is the nature of the "permanent daydream" that I'm in?

Having the audacity to disbelieve that the KGB and GRU were (and still are, although the KGB's Second Chief Directorate and First Chief Directorate -- where Vladimir Putin was a counterintelligence officer --- were nicely and cleverly renamed the FSB and the SVR, respectively, in 1992 or so) ... humanitarian organizations?

-- MWT  ;)


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 14, 2019, 04:57:57 PM
So says the guy with the giant ego and 429 falsehoods and fabrications.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Rick Plant on August 15, 2019, 12:28:25 AM
https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_assassination_II/Guinns_NAA.html

Guinn’s results for silver and antimony are shown in Table 15.[3] Two features of these data should be understood clearly: only single fragments are reported; and the uncertainties refer to only the counting procedure, not to other aspects of the measurement process or to variations within a specimen. Full uncertainties of measurement will be roughly twice as high, and variations within a specimen are several times higher than counting uncertainties. The sole exception is Q14, where both fragments listed in Table 14 were analyzed for Table 15. Thus the uncertainty for Q14 represents heterogeneities in the sample, as well as counting uncertainties. Q5, the smaller fragment from the President’s head, with a mass of only 5.4 milligrams, was analyzed but not reported. The smaller piece of Q9, fragments from the Governor’s wrist, had a mass of only 1.3 milligrams and was also analyzed but not reported. Thus for all intents and purposes, Guinn’s results are for single samples.

Guinn’s results are very similar to those of the FBI 13 years earlier. Data for silver are almost identical, and will not be discussed further because they do not differ much from fragment to fragment. Guinn’s data for antimony agree well with the FBI’s Run 4, as seen in Figure 9. No error bars are shown here because they are discussed in detail in the section on heterogeneity of antimony. Thus, Guinn and the FBI produced nearly identical results for the fragments, even though different pieces were analyzed.

Guinn’s conclusions
Guinn reached three key conclusions from his results, as reported in his Analytical Chemistry paper: (1) to a “high probability,” the fragments all came from Mannlicher-Carcano bullets; (2) there was positive evidence for two and only two bullets; and (3) the results grouped in a way that supported the single-bullet theory. The next sections discuss these results separately.

The fragments are all from WCC/MC bullets
The full statement of this result is that antimony in all the bullet fragments is “in the unusual (though not necessarily unique) concentration ranges of WCC/MC bullet-lead samples.”[4] This made it highly probable that they actually were Mannlicher-Carcanos. It is highly unlikely that any of the fragments came from any other kind of ammunition.

The justification for these conclusions comes for Guinn’s analyses of many different kinds of ammunition. As early as July 1971, Guinn had reported the concentrations of antimony and various other trace elements in 36 kinds of ammunition.[5] Although Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition was not tested here, three lots of 0.38-caliber bullets from Western Cartridge Company were.

Already by 1971, Guinn had focused on antimony as the principal indicator element in bullet lead. The reason antimony was so useful was that it was added to some leads up to 4% or so as a hardening agent. This made its concentration range from 10 or 20 ppm un virgin lead to 40,000 ppm in hardened lead, a much larger range than for elements that were not added to the lad. Guinn listed the concentrations of antimony in each of the 36 lots of bullets. He also listed the concentrations of 1–3 other elements if he was able to measure them. The 36 concentrations of antimony are shown in Figure 10.[6] A logarithmic scale had to be used for antimony because its concentrations ranged over nearly four orders of magnitude.

The range of antimony in Mannlicher-Carcano bullets reported by Guinn, 20–1200 ppm, is also shown, for comparison. It corresponds almost exactly to a group of seven bullets that is below the other 29 by nearly an order of magnitude. (The cause of the two distinct groups is probably just hardened lead versus unhardened lead in the bullets. By contrast, Guinn found that silver varied much less in concentration in the suite of bullets—two orders of magnitude vs. the four for antimony. The reason is probably just that silver is not deliberately added to bullets. Guinn also found that the concentration of silver in Mannlicher-Carcano bullets falls in the middle of the range of concentrations for other types of bullets (Figure 11). The reason for this is also presumably that silver is not added to lead the way antimony is.

The fragments from the assassination can be treated in the same way (Figure 13). Here, however, the ranges of concentration are much smaller. The predicted occurrence of false positives would be (2/19)(2/19) = 1.1%, or 0.2 bullets. The actual occurrence is is no bullets (0%), which is not surprising in view of the 0.2 bullets predicted above. But this is not the right calculation, which must be the fraction of non-MC bullets falling within the area of the fragments divided by the fraction of MC bullets falling within the same area. [The earlier calculation for MC bullets as a whole was a special case of this more general one, where the denominator was 100% (of the MC bullets falling within the MC area).] Since the fraction of MC bullets falling within the range of the assassination fragments is (1/12)(7/12) = 4.9%, the true percentage of false positives becomes [(2/19)(2/19)]/[(1/12)(7/12)], or 22.8%. This latter figure should be regarded as a very rough one because of the small number of cases that went into calculating it. To see just how rough it is, one need only note that no bullets of either kind fell within the narrow zone of assassination fragments. It is probably better then to revert to the earlier calculation for MC bullets as a whole, with a 5%–10% probability of being some other kind of bullet. This assessment agrees with Guinn's characterization of “highly unlikely.” It is also agrees with his statement in Analytical Chemistry that his results “have demonstrated that, to a high degree of probability, all of the bullet-lead evidence specimens are of WCC/MC 6.5-mm brand…”





Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on August 15, 2019, 06:31:01 AM
Dear Peter,

Thanks for all the kind words.

*whereas

** you're

Do you think Jerry lives, Peter?

How about Elvis?

Kurt Cobain?

Question:  What is the nature of the "permanent daydream" that I'm in?

Having the audacity to disbelieve that the KGB and GRU were (and still are, although the KGB's Second Chief Directorate and First Chief Directorate -- where Vladimir Putin was a counterintelligence officer --- were nicely and cleverly renamed the FSB and the SVR, respectively, in 1992 or so) ... humanitarian organizations?

-- MWT  ;)
The CIA has performed terribly through the years. They spend more on fixing mistakes than anything else. Military intelligence has a far better structure for accountability Too many daydreamers in the CIA. You understand
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Thomas Graves on August 15, 2019, 07:53:23 AM
The CIA has performed terribly through the years. They spend more on fixing mistakes than anything else. Military intelligence has a far better structure for accountability Too many daydreamers in the CIA. You understand

Dear Peter,

I concur.  But on a different level. 

The worst CIA daydreamers of them all were those wishful and/or spiteful, under-endowded "thinkers" like Leonard McCoy, John L. Hart, Bruce Solie and Richards J. Heuer who so desperately wanted to believe that Yuri Nosenko was a true defector, that the KGB had had nothing to do with Lee Harvey Oswald while he was living in the USSR, and, most importantly, that KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn was all wet in his claims that Popov had been betrayed by a mole in U.S. Intelligence, that Penkovsky had been betrayed by a mole in British or U.S. Intelligence, and that there was, in 1959, created a top-secret "KGB within the KGB," known officially as "Department 14 of the Second Chief Directorate" (the SCD being today's FSB).

Thereby tearing CIA counter- intelligence efforts against the Kremlin apart, and unwittingly(?) clearing the way for someone like Aldrich Ames to betray the U.S. for nine years, etc, etc, etc.

Enter, in no particular order, Oliver Stone's JFK, "Anna Chapman and The Eleven Dwarfs Spy Ring," James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio, Tommy Mangold, Jefferson "Intellectually Dishonest" Morley, oodles and gobs of tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, and ... gasp ... Donald "Useful Idiot" Trump For President!

-- MWT  ;)


Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on August 18, 2019, 03:19:09 PM
Well, here it is, folks........ page four hundred ninety-one in the Second Book of Saint Albert.  Anyone ever see Book One before Irenaeus (read: St. Duncan of the Stone of Scone) burned it with the rest of the forbidden texts?  Oh, Lordy.

I still think it was just a dude off the street trying to get a better picture of Kennedy going by.  I mean who in the heck was paying attention to who was standing next to who when the limo made the turn?  Everybody wanted a glimpse of The King & Queen (with Jester Johnson in tow).  Jostling for position, like getting s close-up glimpse of Jerry at a Dead concert.  Sigh+
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on August 19, 2019, 06:46:39 AM
Where's that Lovelace guy?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 20, 2019, 08:19:14 PM


::)
REPEAT: If provable indicative information of evidentiary value can be provided supporting YOUR conclusions of said subject matter, perhaps YOU can provide said information(?).

I don't have any conclusions of said subject matter.  Now where is your provable indicative information of evidentiary value?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on August 22, 2019, 11:43:30 AM
So, because people disagree with your assumption that Sarah Stanton is not "Prayer Woman", you believe that is criminal harassment and cyber bullying? I just have to laugh at what you're trying to claim. Seems to me, that you managed to derail this thread with your personal beef with people on other sites not taking you seriously enough to believe your claims. You've offered no proof to officially declare who the figure in the photo is, and it's not Sarah Stanton.  I'm sorry, that is not cyber bullying, that's just people not believing in your claims in which they have every right to do. All I see from you, is you attacking other people on other sites in this thread for not taking you seriously which makes you angry. How about you provide some actual proof and we keep this thread on track for what it's intended for?

Why don't you do what the man asks, Albert?  Provide us some proof.  Real proof.  Not poof.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on August 23, 2019, 11:58:01 PM
What do you even think is a coffee percolator?

(https://i.postimg.cc/hjWtVymW/2nd-floor-coffee-pots.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on August 24, 2019, 06:52:43 AM
Nope, it looks like it could be a coffee-scoop and it appears to be sitting right next to the white edge of the hotplates?

(https://assets.wpsandwatch.com/storage/images/uk/ka/product-detail-page-modules/kitchenaid-artisan-espresso-machine-5kes2102/columns-32/center/1822144-1-eng-GB/center.jpg)

What we can see of the kitchen table top is flat because "we" can see the kettles reflection and besides "we" can determine the width of that area by comparing it to the hotplates and it appears to be only about 5 to 7 inches wide and doesn't a tap need a sink?

(https://i.postimg.cc/nzgXz4KM/hotplates.jpg)

JohnM
I was waiting for you to say there is a rifle somewhere in the picture.  More importantly, Oswald did not have a kitchen in his backyard
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on August 24, 2019, 09:37:42 AM
I was waiting for you to say there is a rifle somewhere in the picture.  More importantly, Oswald did not have a kitchen in his backyard

This is so beyond absurd, reminds me of reading the morning comics back in the day.  There was no water source there, only a stove and counter.  Maybe jugs of water in the fridge?
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on August 24, 2019, 09:47:30 AM
I believe that Carolyn Arnold is hiding in the cupboard under the brown paper sack.
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 24, 2019, 05:47:24 PM
Where?

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10896/images/img_10896_32_200.jpg)
Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: Ray Mitcham on August 24, 2019, 06:42:19 PM
Quote
Quote by Albert.
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)..

Wrong. Andrej Stancak's angle of the sun is correct.  Lovelady, in the frame Doylio is talking about, is not standing by the centre rail. As per this representation
In it Stancak shows Lovelady stand-ing to the left of the entrance. ..
https://thejfktruthmatters.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/top_reduced.jpg


Quote
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...
But you have proved that you aren't a competent analyst, Albert.
Quote
Ray is telling a non-truth here

No he isn't. Ray is telling it as it is, not what Brianwants it to be.

Quote
and my argument is correct by any normal standard of academic vetting of evidence
No it isn't. You are totally incompetent.

Quote
and Ray's obvious dishonesty is not...

Apparently my dishonesty is visible only to you, Albert.

Now be a good boy, take your pills, and leave the grown ups on here, in peace for a few months.



Title: Re: Prayer Woman
Post by: John Mytton on August 25, 2019, 01:13:52 AM
"Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder with a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder)

There's nothing wrong with showing confidence in your findings but a man's got to know his limitations!

JohnM