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

[John Tonkovich]

Still hours of reading Fred (which I will get to in my own time).
Just tell me what it is that debunks the Stanton ID or say you don't know.
But don't claim something like that when you don't know, then pretend that you do.
It's important that avenues of investigation aren't shut off for no reason. I think the claim for it being Oswald on the steps is non-existent. There is literally nothing to make the ID yet others are quite ferocious in their defence of this non-idea. It smacks of intellectual bullying (I use the word 'intellectual' very loosely).
The case for Stanton as prayer-blob is many times more superior to that of Oswald (IMHO) but it seems like those who shout the loudest are the ones who get heard.

Mr O'meara:
There's still a search function on this site, I do believe.

Also, for a guy who just joined this site in..June? of this year, you certainly seem to have strong opinions and, by your own account, a great deal of knowledge.
Have you been researching the JFK assassination for a lot longer than 4 months, through other means?

For the record, the Sarah Stanton, Prayer Man, whomever is a pointless diversion, as is any attempt to ascertain what went on in Oswald's interrogation; those that were present certainly shared less than the truth, there's no audio recording, and everybody involved is long dead.

Before I even thought of joining one of these JFK sites, let alone commenting, I spent several years reading. And reading. And reading.

But, "you shine on, you crazy diamond."

[Zeon Mason]

Returning to Alan Fords theory , (as I apologize for my own theory interrupting such),  may I offer the option that Oswald never actually stepped outside of the TSBD entrance door , and that he was actually just inside the glass partition and that his image might have been captured in the original Weigman film, thus the reason for any shadowing added (if it’s truly alteration as opposed to simply a film processing glitche)

[Dan O'meara]

Mr O'meara:
There's still a search function on this site, I do believe.

Also, for a guy who just joined this site in..June? of this year, you certainly seem to have strong opinions and, by your own account, a great deal of knowledge.
Have you been researching the JFK assassination for a lot longer than 4 months, through other means?

For the record, the Sarah Stanton, Prayer Man, whomever is a pointless diversion, as is any attempt to ascertain what went on in Oswald's interrogation; those that were present certainly shared less than the truth, there's no audio recording, and everybody involved is long dead.

Before I even thought of joining one of these JFK sites, let alone commenting, I spent several years reading. And reading. And reading.

But, "you shine on, you crazy diamond."

No need to be aggressive John.

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.

[Bill Chapman]

No need to be aggressive John.

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.

Good one

[John Iacoletti]

Sure looks fat to me 

Well, I guess that settles it!

 

[John Iacoletti]

This is exactly the poisonous attitude I'm taking a stand against. Just because Doyle was hated by other researchers then anything he advocated is 'wrong'. I totally disagree with this mentality.
You can make as many of your snide comments as you wish John but if you don't think the case for Stanton being prayer-blob is superior to the case for Oswald being prayer-blob then say so.

It has nothing to do with Doyle being “hated by other researchers”. It’s because every single argument he made in favor of prayer-blob being Stanton was either false or made-up.

[John Tonkovich]

No need to be aggressive John.

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.

Mr O'meara: there was nothing " aggressive" in my post.

The " search" function is still functioning.

You seem to have missed the point of my post.
Operating on the maxim " the fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool" ( The Bard), I chose to educate myself.
You are welcome to come here, and speak freely.
Your questions were answered, long ago, by folks much wiser than I will ever be.
Your complaint about " having to search through lengthy threads" speaks for itself.

[Dan O'meara]

It has nothing to do with Doyle being “hated by other researchers”. It’s because every single argument he made in favor of prayer-blob being Stanton was either false or made-up.

Please remind me which arguments I've used that were either false or made up concerning the identification of Stanton. I'm assuming that's what you think as I'm "as bad as Doyle".