Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 292649 times)

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7135
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4210 on: April 29, 2019, 05:17:54 AM »
That is simply false...Davidson proved it was a woman and two witnesses, Lovelady and Frazier, placed Sarah Stanton over by that spot at the time...

That's nonsense. Chris didn?t prove anything about this person?s gender. He made an enhancement that you interpret to be female.

Quote
Since we know Pauline Sanders is over by the east side of the door,

We don?t ?know? anything of the kind.

Quote
and we know Sanders and Stanton are the only two women on the landing

We don?t ?know? that either.

Quote
that proves Prayer Man is Stanton...

Nope. False premises.

Quote
And since both Frazier and Lovelady placed Stanton over in that spot at the time that tells you the woman is Stanton...

No they didn?t. You just made that up.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4210 on: April 29, 2019, 05:17:54 AM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3306
Prayer Woman
« Reply #4211 on: April 29, 2019, 05:31:49 AM »
That's nonsense. Chris didn?t prove anything about this person?s gender. He made an enhancement that you interpret to be female.

False...The record still exists on the other forum of Duncan's posting that image for me by proxy...Every single person who looked at the image and commented said it looked like a woman...What you are saying is false and is proven false by the record...It is a FACT that every single Prayer Man website member who posted in that thread said it looked like a woman...

Davidson also commented on this forum and the other forum that he would only say it once and that the person in his enhancement was a woman...I believe Duncan also said it was a woman and even quit the other forum when he was suspended for "Only posting in order to attack The Lithping Larry Grayson "Oooh Shut That Door" doppleganger"...

Iacoletti forgot to answer this:  " Iacoletti is unable to find Stanton in the photography other than Prayer Man... "
« Last Edit: April 29, 2019, 05:33:27 AM by Brian Doyle »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7135
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4212 on: April 29, 2019, 02:57:41 PM »
False...The record still exists on the other forum of Duncan's posting that image for me by proxy...Every single person who looked at the image and commented said it looked like a woman...

Even if that were true (and it?s not ? you made it up), that wouldn?t be proof that it?s a woman. That?s an ad populum fallacy. You don?t understand what it means to prove something.

Quote
Iacoletti forgot to answer this:  " Iacoletti is unable to find Stanton in the photography other than Prayer Man... "

There?s nothing to answer. I?m not the one claiming to know where Stanton is, you are. Shifting the burden will not save you.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4212 on: April 29, 2019, 02:57:41 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3306
Prayer Woman
« Reply #4213 on: April 29, 2019, 03:28:03 PM »
Even if that were true (and it?s not ? you made it up), that wouldn?t be proof that it?s a woman. That?s an ad populum fallacy. You don?t understand what it means to prove something.

There?s nothing to answer. I?m not the one claiming to know where Stanton is, you are. Shifting the burden will not save you.


You're making excuses...

It is correct as I said and does show what I described...

Your gratuitous denials aren't working...You are trying to avoid a genuine discussion of the evidence in order to force the thread in to your sophist evasions and disingenuous terminology of what is exactly perfect "proof"...I'm not interested in that because I don't consider it a sincere attempt at honest debate...While I agree that it is technically possible that every single person who saw Davidson's image said it was a woman but they could be wrong, in this case it isn't realistic and I consider forcing every post in to your obnoxious naysaying sophistry to be annoying and a waste of my and this website's time...Plus you also show hypocrisy because you refer to polls when you need them but then ignore them when I show a poll that backed me 100%...

The bottom line is you are entering invalid counters and haven't disproven what I am proving with your naysaying denials...Nor are you capable of showing where Stanton is if not Prayer Man and saying the burden is on me isn't valid and is just your excuse for denying what you know to be correct...You are answering your own sophist denial instead of answering the proven evidence I am posting...And you are saying others are held to an impossibly stretched standard of evidence but not yourself simply because you say "burden"...

I think you're done Mr Iacoletti...
« Last Edit: April 29, 2019, 03:36:25 PM by Brian Doyle »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4214 on: April 29, 2019, 04:24:52 PM »

You're making excuses...

It is correct as I said and does show what I described...

Your gratuitous denials aren't working...You are trying to avoid a genuine discussion of the evidence in order to force the thread in to your sophist evasions and disingenuous terminology of what is exactly perfect "proof"...I'm not interested in that because I don't consider it a sincere attempt at honest debate...While I agree that it is technically possible that every single person who saw Davidson's image said it was a woman but they could be wrong, in this case it isn't realistic and I consider forcing every post in to your obnoxious naysaying sophistry to be annoying and a waste of my and this website's time...Plus you also show hypocrisy because you refer to polls when you need them but then ignore them when I show a poll that backed me 100%...

The bottom line is you are entering invalid counters and haven't disproven what I am proving with your naysaying denials...Nor are you capable of showing where Stanton is if not Prayer Man and saying the burden is on me isn't valid and is just your excuse for denying what you know to be correct...You are answering your own sophist denial instead of answering the proven evidence I am posting...And you are saying others are held to an impossibly stretched standard of evidence but not yourself simply because you say "burden"...

I think you're done Mr Iacoletti...

Brian,

Does Iacoletti want Prayer Person to be Oswald?

If so, what evidence, if any, does he have to that effect?

-- MWT   ;)

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4214 on: April 29, 2019, 04:24:52 PM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7135
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4215 on: April 29, 2019, 04:24:58 PM »
I'm not interested in that because I don't consider it a sincere attempt at honest debate..

I don?t much care what you?re interested in. I will continue to call you out when you lie about or misrepresent the evidence.

Quote
Plus you also show hypocrisy because you refer to polls when you need them but then ignore them when I show a poll that backed me 100%...

No, I referred to polls because you falsely claimed that everybody agrees with you. I?m not the one who?s ignorant enough to think that polls are proof of anything.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7135
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4216 on: April 29, 2019, 04:29:38 PM »
Does Iacoletti want Prayer Person to be Oswald?

The answer is no. What anybody wants isn?t even relevant.

My personal opinion is that there is insufficient evidence to positively identify prayer person.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4216 on: April 29, 2019, 04:29:38 PM »

Online Larry Trotter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4217 on: April 29, 2019, 05:37:09 PM »
Brian,

Does Iacoletti want Prayer Person to be Oswald?

If so, what evidence, if any, does he have to that effect?

-- MWT   ;)

  I suppose Mr Iacoletti would have that answer, however, if he has seriously disputed the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, I don't recall reading any comments made supporting said serious dispute.
In any event, it continues to be my belief that any claim of 'no evidence' indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing SarahDeanStanton falls short of reality.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4217 on: April 29, 2019, 05:37:09 PM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7135
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4218 on: April 29, 2019, 07:44:44 PM »
  I suppose Mr Iacoletti would have that answer, however, if he has seriously disputed the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, I don't recall reading any comments made supporting said serious dispute.
In any event, it continues to be my belief that any claim of 'no evidence' indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing SarahDeanStanton falls short of reality.

Well, Larry, if you have any evidence beyond Doyle?s arguments based on lying about what Lovelady and Frazier said and claiming that things have been ?proven? when they are pure speculation, I?d sure like to see it.

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4219 on: April 29, 2019, 07:53:23 PM »
  I suppose Mr Iacoletti would have that answer, however, if he has seriously disputed the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory, I don't recall reading any comments made supporting said serious dispute.
In any event, it continues to be my belief that any claim of 'no evidence' indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing SarahDeanStanton falls short of reality.

Larry,

Iacoletti appears to claim that there's not enough evidence to say Prayer Person is a man, or a woman.

One can only wonder, then, whether or not Mr. Blobs has tried to refute "Prayer Person Is A Man" true-believers on this issue as persistently and vigorously as he has attempted to refute Duncan MacRae and Chris Davidson, et al. ...

-- MWT   ;)
« Last Edit: April 29, 2019, 08:42:57 PM by Thomas Graves »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4219 on: April 29, 2019, 07:53:23 PM »

 

Mobile View