Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 39 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 210539 times)

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4480 on: May 27, 2019, 12:06:55 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Frazier is addressing the whole room, not just one person.

Like myself, Brian has noticed that Frazier's eyes, as well as his head, move to the right in synchronisation with the "We looked at one another" part of his statement.

The video quality of this section is better than the quality of this gif.



Duncan,

The man who asked the question that Frazier was addressing was sitting on the right side of the room, from Frazier's POV.

If you actually watch the part of the 48-minute and 53-second youtube video in which that man is asking that question, and how Frazier looks at him a few times in exactly the same direction while answering his question, you'll realize that Frazier doesn't "motion" with his head or eyes as you and Brian claim.

-- MWT  ;)
« Last Edit: May 27, 2019, 12:18:16 PM by Thomas Graves »

Offline Duncan MacRae

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 227
    • JFK Assassination Videos
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4481 on: May 27, 2019, 12:30:55 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Duncan,

The man who asked the question that Frazier was addressing was sitting on the right side of the room, from Frazier's POV.

If you actually watch the part of the 48-minute and 53-second youtube video in which that man is asking that question, and how Frazier looks at him a few times in exactly the same direction while answering his question, you'll realize that Frazier doesn't "motion" with his head or eyes as you and Brian claim.

I disagree, the body language is completely different.

Frazier makes an unconscious and extremely short but noticeable visual pause when unconsciously visually describing his head and eyes motions turns towards Sarah Stanton.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4481 on: May 27, 2019, 12:30:55 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Prayer Woman
« Reply #4482 on: May 27, 2019, 02:56:12 PM »

When Buell says "The lady I was standing by" he shifts his eyes to the right as if he is remembering her as she was standing by him to his right:


« Last Edit: May 27, 2019, 03:04:07 PM by Brian Doyle »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Prayer Woman
« Reply #4483 on: May 27, 2019, 03:03:06 PM »

There is no doubt that at 34:45 of this video Frazier bounces his hand back and forth to his right to indicate Sarah standing to his right as "we stood there for a few minutes":



JFK Assassination Forum

Prayer Woman
« Reply #4483 on: May 27, 2019, 03:03:06 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Prayer Woman
« Reply #4484 on: May 27, 2019, 03:20:37 PM »

Simkin is complaining on the other forum that his Spartacus site is being unlisted by Google...Funny he takes a position against censorship when his site is banning people who can prove the Prayer Man theory is garbage...They are in a personal destruction mode against myself where Simkin takes no intellectual position against his bully moderator censoring my correct evidence for reasons of spite...Some hypocrites... 

Offline Michael Clark

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4485 on: May 27, 2019, 03:38:28 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Simkin is complaining on the other forum that his Spartacus site is being unlisted by Google...Funny he takes a position against censorship when his site is banning people who can prove the Prayer Man theory is garbage...They are in a personal destruction mode against myself where Simkin takes no intellectual position against his bully moderator censoring my correct evidence for reasons of spite...Some hypocrites...

Here is the thing, Brian, and there is no getting around it.

Your “style” does not pass the “would you want everyone to do and act as you do and act?” test?

If everyone were to repeat, over and over, long, invective-laced, ad-hominem laden, self laudatory arguments that provide scant original research which offers no visual aids in a photographic analysis debate, but which does include abject denigration of those who offer such aides, for respectful considered debate, what would we have? We would have no debate at all. No one would stick around, except those few who are tirelessly dedicated to standing in the way of your running amok with nonsense.

If everyone acted as you do, everyone, but you and very very few others, would just walk away. You would have nowhere to go, which is almost the case now.

I don’t mean to be harsh, or rile you up. It is just a fact of life that I just don’t think you understand. Perhaps you believe that your ability to clear the room comes from your superior knowledge and skills; but you would be mistaken, it is something else...

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4485 on: May 27, 2019, 03:38:28 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Prayer Woman
« Reply #4486 on: May 27, 2019, 05:45:51 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here is the thing, Brian, and there is no getting around it.

Your “style” does not pass the “would you want everyone to do and act as you do and act?” test?

If everyone were to repeat, over and over, long, invective-laced, ad-hominem laden, self laudatory arguments that provide scant original research which offers no visual aids in a photographic analysis debate, but which does include abject denigration of those who offer such aides, for respectful considered debate, what would we have? We would have no debate at all. No one would stick around, except those few who are tirelessly dedicated to standing in the way of your running amok with nonsense.

If everyone acted as you do, everyone, but you and very very few others, would just walk away. You would have nowhere to go, which is almost the case now.

I don’t mean to be harsh, or rile you up. It is just a fact of life that I just don’t think you understand. Perhaps you believe that your ability to clear the room comes from your superior knowledge and skills; but you would be mistaken, it is something else...


Michael...The true problem that is happening here is the other forum has spoiled its membership so badly with selective censorship and banning of those who refute the Prayer Man dummies that they have been kept from real credible academic debate and are literally no longer capable of doing it...A credibly moderated board has the moderator wisely determine who is trying to avoid the better evidence and arguments and force them to honestly respond to legitimate points and conduct a productive, progressive debate...Those accusations of my style being unacceptable are just the excuse of those who were refusing to honestly answer my evidence...That's pure hypocrisy because anyone can see that they practice much worse and do it in a way designed to avoid good evidence...Just look at the content of B The Lithping Larry Grayson "Oooh Shut That Door" doppleganger's website and try to tell me you or those phonies on the other site are honestly sensitive to style...The style on The Lithping Larry Grayson "Oooh Shut That Door" doppleganger's website is some of the worst demented trolling and abuse by some world-class nuts yet the input from that site and its representative has a permanent seat on that forum with no such protest...No Michael...The reason I am not welcomed on that site is because the moderator there is an incompetent and he realized I was about to refute his favorite members that he personally did not possess the skill to detect the serious flaws in the evidence they presented...That moderator realized that the person he abused and ridiculed and held to a rules standard he held no one else to was about to single-handedly debunk some of that site's sacred cows so he took the cowardly route out and protected his incompetency from exposure through cowardly banning...Don't pretend this is a style issue because that same moderator banned MacRae, Gilbride, and Graves when they dared called the site's parade as marching naked on Prayer Man...

You're just repeating their dishonest excuses...Photo posting is not easy on that forum and I am the only one for whom the inability to post photos is used as an excuse for banning...I could sue for that because it is being used against me and no one else...In any case what you say is provably not true because on this site and Facebook where I did support my arguments with photos those Prayer Man people did not come there to argue their points...They don't come over to those fair playing field venues to argue their evidence not because of any style issues but because they know they'll be forced to answer the proof that bully moderator protects them from...If there's any "style" that deserves criticism it is that style of information censorship...

What you are saying is false and is just the lying excuse of those who used a rogue moderator to ban me instead of answering my valid evidence...You get this particular kind of dishonesty when you out-argue a pretentious 95% board majority like I did on the Prayer Man evidence...That claim that my unacceptable behavior would have driven good researchers from the board is as phony as they come and was just used as an excuse for an obviously unqualified moderator to protect his Prayer Man friends at their excuse because they were in the process of being debunked...You're not telling the truth Michael...You claimed you didn't slag me but then you posted the above proof that you did...That is what is out of control and it has been effectively used to silence the correct evidence that so-called "debate" board calls for but then bans when it disproves the favorites...Michael, several members petitioned for my reinstatement...It was spitefully denied by that rogue moderator for the reasons I cited...If the problem was my style then why did that moderator make unprecedented vindictive rules that my content be disallowed by site rule with threat of punishment?...What does that moderator add to the board except threats of punishment?...And why doesn't he account for the good evidence he unfairly disallows?...

You are probably unaware that you are only proving my point because, just like on the other board, when I protested that my good evidence was being unfairly ignored it was answered with the phony tripe you post above which is just a subjective personal attack that avoids the evidence I was discussing...Just like then on the other board, you also use the exact same ruse to avoid discussing my evidence...Because I out-argued 95% of the board members on the Prayer Man evidence they actually got away with deluding themselves that it was a matter of "style" when anyone could see they were avoiding answering my good evidence...The most important thing on any credible academic debate board is the evidence and all credible discussion always focuses on it...Because of the BS you type those who were failing to live up to the evidence I did present were allowed to use that false excuse you post as a means of avoiding that evidence...They then lied and convinced themselves they had a banned a member for intolerable offenses when the truth was it was directly because of evidence that had refuted them...The bottom line is the evidence is the only thing that matters and both you and them have failed to address it and have both used false excuses to avoid it like you do here...

David Josephs once accused me of providing "no original research"...He then ignored my unprecedented Prayer Man evidence that used the best original research on the subject to disprove the Prayer Man theory and prove it was Sarah Stanton...David had previously stated in public that "Prayer Man was Oswald"...You are entirely ignorant if you falsely say I provided no photographic evidence...That's false and one look at my Prayer Woman Facebook page shows photographic evidence that is so damning that the Prayer Man people literally can't respond...Instead they cowar under the bully protection of censorship moderated websites... 

You're making a real mistake patronizing me Michael...If we ever got around to discussing the evidence you are obviously clueless about (because of the information censorship of that other board) I would shred you in short order - which is the real reason I was banned by that other board...If you want to show who is right here please debate me on the evidence directly...That is usually what determines these things (unless of course you are dishonestly removed because you were winning the debate)...
   
« Last Edit: May 27, 2019, 07:00:15 PM by Brian Doyle »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4487 on: May 27, 2019, 09:04:28 PM »
Brian Doyle wrote:

[The EF] banned MacRae, Gilbride, and Graves [over the] Prayer Man [issue].

Brian,

You always seem to shoot yourself in the foot.

I wasn't banned from the EF because I was claiming that Prayer Person couldn't be Oswald, but because Mikey had baited me with three or four same-hour, successive, short-and- assinine posts on a thread (after Kathy Beckett had sternly warned both of us in PMs to behave ourselves while was on her away-from-Internet vacation in Europe), waited for me to "rise" to said insults and to post something sarcastic in reply, and then, like a rat, very quickly deleted his offending posts so that Beckett wouldn't see them when she "checked in," but would see my outrageous reply, instead.

Bottom line, you give yourself way too much credit for what goes on in the Universe, Doyle.

-- MWT  ;)

« Last Edit: May 27, 2019, 09:07:19 PM by Thomas Graves »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4487 on: May 27, 2019, 09:04:28 PM »

Offline Duncan MacRae

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 227
    • JFK Assassination Videos
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4488 on: May 27, 2019, 09:09:46 PM »
Just for the record, I was not banned from The Education Forum.  Thumb1:

Offline Michael Clark

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4489 on: May 27, 2019, 09:45:27 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Brian Doyle wrote:

[The EF] banned MacRae, Gilbride, and Graves [over the] Prayer Man [issue].

Brian,

You always seem to shoot yourself in the foot.

I wasn't banned from the EF because I was claiming that Prayer Person couldn't be Oswald, but because Mikey had baited me with three or four same-hour, successive, short-and- assinine posts on a thread (after Kathy Beckett had sternly warned both of us in PMs to behave ourselves while was on her away-from-Internet vacation in Europe), waited for me to "rise" to said insults and to post something sarcastic in reply, and then, like a rat, very quickly deleted his offending posts so that Beckett wouldn't see them when she "checked in," but would see my outrageous reply, instead.

..........

-- MWT  ;)

That is fantasy,  Thomasitayuritovich. While you allowed yourself, and still do, the freedom to post, ad nauseam, your Bagley/spy wars plug, you completely lost your cookies when I set-out to begin answering (yes, ad-nauseum) them with my Howard Olson document which, as John Newman messaged me, served the purpose of “spiking Pete’s career”. Pete is Pete Bagley, for clarity.

That’s it. You made the rest of that up.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2019, 09:46:12 PM by Michael Clark »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4489 on: May 27, 2019, 09:45:27 PM »

 

Mobile View