Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Alan Ford]

I had no idea there were other Stanton fans out there.

They want to take a man pictured in the photograph and claim it's a 300+ pound woman. 

 Stanton's own testimony refutes their absurd claim.

They don't give a damn who it is as long as it's not Mr Oswald. Why, when the PM image first came to attention a bunch of Nutters assured everyone '"It's Billy Lovelady!" When that didn't pan out, they pivoted to "It's an obese woman!" Tells you a lot about the intellectual honesty of Team Keep LHO Away From Them Steps

[Dan O'meara]

There are facts, and then there are speculative attempts to account for these facts.

a) Impossible Shadow Down Mr Lovelady In Wiegman = Fact

b) Speculative Attempts To Account For This Fact = Speculative Attempts To Account For This Fact

I have been unwavering about a), open to a range of possibilities for b).

You are still in denial about a)

Lol

You dare talk about denial while you refuse to explain Lovelady's shirt sleeve in this detailed Altgens pic rather than the over-exposed version you cling to, that has all detail washed out of it.
This isn't going away Alan.
Explain the above image 

[Rick Plant]

Just for the record Rick, I'd like to point out something I said in Reply #514

"Fred claimed the Sarah Stanton/Prayer Man ID had been debunked and I wanted to know about that claim.
I've read through the threads he provided and found that the Stanton ID hasn't been debunked there so that was a wild goose chase (as I expected) But you, with your years of "reading. And reading. And reading", maybe you can point me in the right direction.
Just for the record, I've never claimed to have "a great deal of knowledge" about this subject, that's a blatant falsehood on your behalf. I've always been modest about being a Newbie and have held my hands up to the rookie mistakes I've made (and will make in the future).
As for Prayer Man being a "pointless diversion" - it's not me you need to be telling. I've taken an anti-PM stance because I find something about it unpleasant. I couldn't give a sh$t if it's Stanton on the steps or not. it has no bearing on how I view this whole event but I won't just sit back while being attacked by researchers such as yourself for exploring a possibility."

The Stanton thing is an anti- Prayer Man stance.
I find the rabid mentality displayed by PM zealots is something that needs challenging.
There is zero evidence Oswald was on the steps at the time of the assassination and plenty against.
It makes no difference to me whether it's Stanton, Oswald or Jimmy Hoffa stood in the shadows on the steps.

Not sure why you are taking offense at my comment.

You and a couple of others made the false claim that Sarah Stanton is the Prayer Man. One crackpot goes as far to say he has "proven it's Stanton" but can only provide bogus claims for his "so called evidence". When you make a hefty claim as that, you need to provide specific evidence to back up that claim. Not vague references, fabrications, and dismissals as your "evidence".   

Each time I pose a question asking that specific individual how Sarah Stanton was able to be in the Prayer Man position when she was identified on the opposite side, I never get a real answer from that person. I get the same responses as yours, which feigned indignation and my question always is ignored. The reason? That person has no answer to for their failed claim. 

It's a simple question to answer. How was Stanton able to get in the Prayer Man position (as you claim) when she was on the opposite side? All I get is continued obfuscation and no real answer whenever I ask someone who claims Stanton is the Prayer Man.       

Yes, the Sarah Stanton claim has been debunked and I took part in that debunking.

Being a "newbie" has nothing to do with it. You don't even have to know one thing about the assassination. I've asked people that don't know anything about JFK to look at the photo and tell me if they think the Prayer Man is a 300+ pound woman aka Sarah Stanton. They all say "no" and they believe it's a male figure due to the head and receding hairline.

You can explore all the possibilities you want, but you need to back that up with solid evidence, and when that evidence debunks the claim it's time to face the facts that "possibility" is now debunked.         

Now Buell Frazier, Pauline Sanders, and Sarah Stanton herself all place her on the opposite side. Sarah Stanton in her FBI testimony never places herself in the Prayer Man position. Are you going to disregard her testimony?

Obviously you do care because you're very upset over it.

The fact of the matter is, certain people don't want the Prayer Man to be Lee Harvey Oswald, so they use Sarah Stanton as a "stand in" to claim it's not Oswald.

These same people use the "either or" argument. They say it has to either be Oswald or Stanton for their failed claim and they refuse to acknowledge that it can be another unknown person standing there.     

If it makes no difference to you, then why do you keep making absurd claims that Stanton is the Prayer Man, when it's obviously not, by just looking at the size of the figure? The person in the photo is not a 300+ pound woman no matter how hard you try to push for it to be.

And on top of that, Stanton's daughter in law and granddaughter are on audio confirming that Stanton was "huge" at that time. She couldn't get out of the backseat of a car at a funeral because she was so big. That description does not fit the size of the Prayer Man because the Prayer Man in the photo is not "huge" well over 300+ pounds.       

[Alan Ford]

You dare talk about denial while you refuse to explain Lovelady's shirt sleeve in this detailed Altgens pic

Oh but I don't refuse to explain it, Mr O'Meara--------if you'd been paying attention, you'd realize that you're showing me what I believe is a later, doctored version, with necessary 'details' added in. I believe the version Mr Cronkite showed to the American public 11/22/63 was the closest said American public has ever come to seeing what the original looked like. And it shows an unsleeved arm holding a soda bottle---------



---------with said bottle crossing in front of Mr Lovelady's semi-unbuttoned shirt---------



Still waiting for you to explain in detail how Mr Lovelady's posture can possibly be yielding this 'shadow' in Wiegman--------------



Your recent running away from this challenge suggests that this latest 'nothing to see here' claim of yours is going to end no more happily than your previous 'nothing to see here' claim, to wit that Mr Lovelady was 'obviously' in the shadow of the western column!

 

[Alan Ford]

If it makes no difference to you, then why do you keep making absurd claims that Stanton is the Prayer Man, when it's obviously not, by just looking at the size of the figure?

It makes an enormous difference to Mr O'Meara. He knows that Mr Oswald claimed to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade" and he desperately wants that claim not to be true. Hence his irrational hostility to all attempts to explore Mr Oswald's claimed alibi.

As for why he pulls a Doyle by identifying PM as Ms Stanton-----------he's desperate, as Team Keep LHO Away From Them Steps have been desperate since 2013. They don't have a single credible alternative candidate to Mr Oswald. And the more time passes with their still coming up empty, the more glaring their failure becomes.

[Rick Plant]

"Fred claimed the Sarah Stanton/Prayer Man ID had been debunked and I wanted to know about that claim.
I've read through the threads he provided and found that the Stanton ID hasn't been debunked there so that was a wild goose chase (as I expected) But you, with your years of "reading. And reading. And reading", maybe you can point me in the right direction.

A couple of people (including one crackpot that's the laughing stock of the JFK assassination community) latched onto the bogus "Sarah Stanton as Prayer Man" claim because their whole goal was to eliminate Oswald as a candidate out of pure desperation. Their phony theory has been easily debunked because they provided no solid evidence that the Prayer Man is actually Stanton. All they do is make the absurd Stanton claim, and then they attempt to manufacture their own "evidence", but they fail at it each time. Stanton's own relatives debunked their phony claim based on her own physical appearance. Stanton clearly does not match the figure.   

So, where is your 100% positive proof that a man in a photograph is really a 300+ pound woman as you are trying to claim?   

Just for the record, I've never claimed to have "a great deal of knowledge" about this subject, that's a blatant falsehood on your behalf. I've always been modest about being a Newbie and have held my hands up to the rookie mistakes I've made (and will make in the future).

What are you even talking about? When have I ever stated you had a "great deal of knowledge about this subject" or that you didn't?     

As for Prayer Man being a "pointless diversion" - it's not me you need to be telling. I've taken an anti-PM stance because I find something about it unpleasant. I couldn't give a sh$t if it's Stanton on the steps or not. it has no bearing on how I view this whole event but I won't just sit back while being attacked by researchers such as yourself for exploring a possibility."

Obviously you do, because you continue to push this absurd Sarah Stanton as Prayer Man claim with no evidence. How are you being "attacked" Mr. O'Meara? I've asked you to provide proof for your "Sarah Stanton as Prayer Man" claim and you haven't.

You can take whatever stance you want, but when you have zero evidence to prove it as factual, you need to give it up.

Exploring possibilities are fine, but when the evidence is against you, then that's the time to let it go. You're continuing to push a lost cause.   

The Stanton thing is an anti- Prayer Man stance.
I find the rabid mentality displayed by PM zealots is something that needs challenging.
There is zero evidence Oswald was on the steps at the time of the assassination and plenty against.
It makes no difference to me whether it's Stanton, Oswald or Jimmy Hoffa stood in the shadows on the steps.

There's nothing wrong with challenging anybody or anything, in fact I recommend it, but when you have a losing claim like "Sarah Stanton as Prayer Man" you need to let it go and chalk it up as a loss.

Lee Harvey Oswald is not the issue here, it's Sarah Stanton, the 300+ pound woman you are claiming is in the photo instead of the unknown man who was actually photographed.

The figure in question is not Sarah Stanton based on her own testimony, physical appearance, and eye witness accounts.   

[Dan O'meara]

Not sure why you are taking offense at my comment.

You and a couple of others made the false claim that Sarah Stanton is the Prayer Man. One crackpot goes as far to say he has "proven it's Stanton" but can only provide bogus claims for his "so called evidence". When you make a hefty claim as that, you need to provide specific evidence to back up that claim. Not vague references, fabrications, and dismissals as your "evidence".   

Each time I pose a question asking that specific individual how Sarah Stanton was able to be in the Prayer Man position when she was identified on the opposite side, I never get a real answer from that person. I get the same responses as yours, which feigned indignation and my question always is ignored. The reason? That person has no answer to for their failed claim. 

It's a simple question to answer. How was Stanton able to get in the Prayer Man position (as you claim) when she was on the opposite side? All I get is continued obfuscation and no real answer whenever I ask someone who claims Stanton is the Prayer Man.       

Yes, the Sarah Stanton claim has been debunked and I took part in that debunking.

Being a "newbie" has nothing to do with it. You don't even have to know one thing about the assassination. I've asked people that don't know anything about JFK to look at the photo and tell me if they think the Prayer Man is a 300+ pound woman aka Sarah Stanton. They all say "no" and they believe it's a male figure due to the head and receding hairline.

You can explore all the possibilities you want, but you need to back that up with solid evidence, and when that evidence debunks the claim it's time to face the facts that "possibility" is now debunked.         

Now Buell Frazier, Pauline Sanders, and Sarah Stanton herself all place her on the opposite side. Sarah Stanton in her FBI testimony never places herself in the Prayer Man position. Are you going to disregard her testimony?

Obviously you do care because you're very upset over it.

The fact of the matter is, certain people don't want the Prayer Man to be Lee Harvey Oswald, so they use Sarah Stanton as a "stand in" to claim it's not Oswald.

These same people use the "either or" argument. They say it has to either be Oswald or Stanton for their failed claim and they refuse to acknowledge that it can be another unknown person standing there.     

If it makes no difference to you, then why do you keep making absurd claims that Stanton is the Prayer Man, when it's obviously not, by just looking at the size of the figure? The person in the photo is not a 300+ pound woman no matter how hard you try to push for it to be.

And on top of that, Stanton's daughter in law and granddaughter are on audio confirming that Stanton was "huge" at that time. She couldn't get out of the backseat of a car at a funeral because she was so big. That description does not fit the size of the Prayer Man because the Prayer Man in the photo is not "huge" well over 300+ pounds.     

Yeah Rick,
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.
My reply included a post from ages ago (reply#524) that explained my stance on Stanton.
You seem to have taken it as if it was meant for you personally.
It's not.