Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 27 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 210837 times)

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #120 on: May 08, 2018, 04:34:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
On their false assumption that the figure is male:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stancak is presenting seriously flawed evidence...There's a huge double standard out there because if I tried to pass that malarkey off as science I would be deservedly shredded in quick order...The bias of the playing field here is extreme to the point of discrediting the entire JFK research community...
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 05:05:27 PM by Brian Doyle »

Offline Mark A. Oblazney

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #121 on: May 09, 2018, 03:04:45 PM »
It was a dude taking pictures with a camera, in my humble opinion.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #121 on: May 09, 2018, 03:04:45 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Prayer Woman
« Reply #122 on: May 09, 2018, 05:08:49 PM »
Not possible because of the Davidson enhancement...I tried to get Davidson back in to the issue but he said that squabbling over the identity of the person was not something he wanted to do...Not a very professional approach to research or responsibility towards what he discovered in my opinion...In my opinion Davidson doesn't want to get involved in the politics that follow...No serious photo analyzer could look at the Davidson enhancement and come away thinking it was anything else but a woman...You can see the Davidson enhancement at the end of the first post in this thread on page 1...In response to my request Davidson said that he would make one comment on the matter...That he thought the face he uncovered was that of a woman...

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

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

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

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

It's time to break up the presumptuous clique... It has done enough damage already to credible research and those skilled members who present it...And even worse it has thrust to the forefront people who should obviously never be allowed near the inner sanctum of credible JFK assassination research...These people know Prayer Man is Stanton...They are just maintaining the cult and its forced impunity for preferred members who don't have to respond to intelligent evidence...
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 05:16:05 PM by Brian Doyle »

Online Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #123 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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #123 on: May 09, 2018, 08:10:15 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #124 on: May 09, 2018, 08:31:16 PM »
The glowing object has already proven to be a hand because one of the images Duncan posted (page 1 post 1) varied in contrast just to enough of a degree to show knuckles and slits between the fingers...Besides, a woman would not be holding a cup and opening a purse with the cup in that hand...

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

It is kind of clear why Davidson doesn't assist...He's helping Stancak split hairs on moot, already-debunked graphics that avoid the main evidence...
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 08:52:13 PM by Brian Doyle »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #125 on: May 11, 2018, 02:42:21 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...No serious photo analyzer could look at the Davidson enhancement and come away thinking it was anything else but a woman...You can see the Davidson enhancement at the end of the first post in this thread on page 1...In response to my request Davidson said that he would make one comment on the matter...That he thought the face he uncovered was that of a woman...

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

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


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #125 on: May 11, 2018, 02:42:21 AM »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #126 on: May 11, 2018, 03:04:02 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...
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).

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #127 on: May 11, 2018, 06:21:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
An expert would compare all available frames not concentrate on one. Once he does this he would notice what is most obvious to anyone doing the same, that this cannot be this person's face simply because it isn't even even centred on it's head, that's why the "woman" has a massive forehead btw because it's a complete distortion of what we see in other frames that show nothing of the kind.
You have film(itc Wiegman) with more than one frame showing your subject, which experts do you know that concentrate only on one? Obviously, ones with a case to promote.

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

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

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

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

PS: The clearest images of Darnell show a radiator where Stancak has his bent leg...I have posted this several times and it gets ignored by those who apologize for people who are wasting the community's time by further pursuing what they already know to be false evidence...
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 06:25:37 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #127 on: May 11, 2018, 06:21:15 PM »

Online Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #128 on: May 11, 2018, 08:18:23 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 01:43:13 AM by Larry Trotter »

Online Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #129 on: May 12, 2018, 04:22:40 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The glowing object has already proven to be a hand because one of the images Duncan posted (page 1 post 1) varied in contrast just to enough of a degree to show knuckles and slits between the fingers...Besides, a woman would not be holding a cup and opening a purse with the cup in that hand...

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

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

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

And, whether right or wrong, as stated, a basis for said conclusion(s). 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #129 on: May 12, 2018, 04:22:40 PM »

 

Mobile View