Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 28 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 210835 times)

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Prayer Woman
« Reply #4490 on: May 27, 2019, 10:16:59 PM »

Duncan insisted his account be deleted and all his posts after he got suspended for "only posting in order to get to The Lithping Larry Grayson "Oooh Shut That Door" doppleganger"...

Thomas doesn't realize he was banned for backing up my Prayer Man evidence...

I think Michael Clark doesn't really know the Prayer Man evidence that well...The other forum does not argue the evidence honestly or proactively and only favors those who argue the Prayer Man side, as is evidenced by there only being pro-Prayer Man posters there now...

If Clark were telling the truth he would go over and post those two questions I asked him to ask Stancak...


Online Michael Clark

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4491 on: May 27, 2019, 10:44:54 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
.......

If Clark were telling the truth he would go over and post those two questions ...

Telling the truth about what?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4491 on: May 27, 2019, 10:44:54 PM »

Online Tom Scully

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4492 on: May 27, 2019, 10:51:54 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
…..
If Clark were telling the truth he would go over and post those two questions I asked him to ask Stancak...

Manipulation is not your strong suit.
Quote
Voicing For Banned Members:-

It is deemed to be a breach of the rules where a current member posts on behalf of a banned member. It is relatively easy to identify when such a breach may be taking place if requested by a member to post on their behalf. Safest to post for yourself and not on behalf of others.
The penalty will be that the offending member will be placed on "Two Posts a Day" for a a period of time.

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Prayer Woman
« Reply #4493 on: May 27, 2019, 11:35:32 PM »
That "Voicing For Banned Members" rule was made up specifically for me because I was getting Hargrove to ask the necessary points of evidence that the other board's members were not asking...Like I said, a credible moderator sees who is delivering the best stuff and forces those who are dishonestly avoiding it to honestly respond for the purpose of establishing the best dialogue on the best evidence...The other forum's moderator ignored that by means of this targeted dishonest rule that completely ignored the issue of the correct evidence...Hargrove protested that the banned material might have valid evidence that the board's members had a right to know...The other moderator said he would try to work a way to allow for that good evidence but he never did...That unfair rule was designed personally against me and was so because my evidence was disproving the Prayer Man posters on that forum...I guess when you can't beat them by the merit of your material get a biased moderator to help you out by banning the poster...You make it an issue of the poster instead of his facts and that way you can get around your own wrongdoing in the matter...

No, the manipulation is being done from the side that creates phony moderation issues where there are none in order to silence the voice of a skilled member who is beating the favored majority at fair discussion of evidence...The other moderator applied the rule but never answered the fact the banned member was unfairly banned...When a corrupted moderator is allowed to rule on his own doings like a dictator then his bannings are all automatically sound...The manipulation is coming from the side that lurks waiting to make personal snipes against you but never participates in the actual discussion of evidence...And ultimately uses that personal attack to once again fail to answer two points of conclusive evidence that are once again avoided by this deceptive means...

The other forum's moderator is a bully who threatens and makes rules but works directly against the purpose of productive debate...He sees a dishonest majority who will favor his censoring a researcher who is refuting them for purposes of not admitting evidence and they work with each other...He never answers the basic question of the good evidence he unfairly disallows...The only thing he has is threats and banning in order to make up for his obvious inability...

Both of you are dodging the main point in public...The evidence always comes first and so far every one who opposes me has dishonestly avoided it...

This dishonest method has been successfully used to prevent less than honest persons from asking Stancak why there is no sun on Prayer Man's left leg in Darnell if his graphic shows bright sun on that same leg?...Or why he never did any graphic for Wiegman?...(Stancak avoided showing his graphic results for Wiegman because it proved the foot on the step to be impossible)...

Recently Lemkin made a post condemning that other board for banning him and deleting his posts...It never dawns on Lemkin that he did the same thing to me for the crime of being the only forum member to be able to prove Prayer Man was Stanton...
« Last Edit: May 27, 2019, 11:40:52 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Prayer Woman
« Reply #4493 on: May 27, 2019, 11:35:32 PM »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4494 on: May 28, 2019, 03:57:56 AM »
Mike,

I posted:


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 successive, short, non-contributing, asinine 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  ;)




You replied:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.



Mike,

You don't remember the three, consecutive, short, inane, "covering," non-contributing-to-the-thread posts you made on May 20, 2017, on page 1 of my new thread "For Chris Newton, Larry Hancock, Tracy Parnell and Other Critically-Minded Members" ???

Here's a screen shot of the pertinent part of that page, with your comments highlighted in bold text:



Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted unnecessarily abrasive post.
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Unnecessary, OT post
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark
« Last Edit: May 28, 2019, 07:51:58 AM by Thomas Graves »

Online Michael Clark

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4495 on: May 28, 2019, 04:07:51 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mike,

I posted:

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  ;)[/b]



You replied:

Mike,

You don't remember the three, ..........

Tom, You are no better at manipulation or obfuscation than the other guy.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4495 on: May 28, 2019, 04:07:51 AM »

Online Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4496 on: May 28, 2019, 04:11:03 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mike,

I posted:


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  ;)




You replied:

"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."






Mike,

You don't remember the three, consecutive, short, inane, "covering," non-contributing-to-the-thread posts you made on May 20, 2017, on page 1 of my new thread "For Chris Newton, Larry Hancock, Tracy Parnell and Other Critically-Minded Members" ? ? ?

Here's a "copy and paste" of the pertinent part of that page, with your comments highlighted in bold text:



Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted unnecessarily abrasive post.
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Unnecessary, OT post
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Edited and posted for Mike Clark to prevaricate about.

-- MWT  ;)

« Last Edit: May 28, 2019, 04:54:01 AM by Thomas Graves »

Offline Mark A. Oblazney

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4497 on: May 28, 2019, 10:56:42 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Manipulation is not your strong suit.

I still think it was a dude taking pictures with a camera.  And tell us more about Mary Pinchot Meyer, Albert. Inquiring minds want to know, uh...... have you taken a bath yet?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4497 on: May 28, 2019, 10:56:42 AM »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4498 on: May 28, 2019, 01:29:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hughes and Lovelady in harmony, take a long hard look at his position pls Brian.


There is more than a hint of BWF in the above* and PM too but I'm wondering if Chris, or anyone really, could try and make them easier for us to see, if he/they haven't already.

*Girl in blue is bleeding into the area surrounding her and BWF was apparently wearing blue too(according to Bell) but look at Carl Jones' (the guy in front of BL)arm in front of the pillar, there's some nice definition there from that distance.  I think we see(we do) a flash of Buell's hand and blue shirted arm but apart from that I'd really like to know if we can let everyone see the person behind Lovelady in Hughes or not.  He/she/something seems to be fading in and out.

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Prayer Woman
« Reply #4499 on: May 28, 2019, 02:48:04 PM »
Thomas is helping Michael avoid the Prayer Man evidence that proves Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...

Barry doesn't seem to realize Hughes confirms what I was saying...It proves Lovelady was by the west side of the portal when the limousine passed...Sarah is right behind him in the Prayer Man spot...Lovelady described this as being "next to me"...9 seconds after Hughes Davidson captured a woman's face on Prayer Man in Wiegman...This proves the "next to me" was Prayer Man and Sarah was over on Frazier's right side before the shots...
« Last Edit: May 28, 2019, 04:21:42 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Prayer Woman
« Reply #4499 on: May 28, 2019, 02:48:04 PM »

 

Mobile View