Prayer Woman

[Larry Trotter]

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.

[Matthew Finch]

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.

[Mark A. Oblazney]

It was a dude taking pictures with a camera, in my humble opinion.

[Larry Trotter]

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.

[Barry Pollard]

...
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).

[Larry Trotter]

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.

[Larry Trotter]

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.