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 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 Stinky's, but unlike Stinky 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 Stinky 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 Stinky 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 Stinky 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