Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 314938 times)

Offline Duncan MacRae

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 261
    • JFK Assassination Photographs
Prayer Woman
« on: April 01, 2018, 04:24:52 PM »
As new facts and analysis become available, this article may be ammended at any time,

Please feel free to discuss and debate anything about the individual known as "Prayer Woman"

The "Prayer Woman is a man" theory, as promoted by others, can also be discussed here.

Duncan MacRae: Article - Tuesday, 12 January 2016 - Including Fresh Edits & Content Inclusions.

Prayer Person - Prayer Man Or Prayer Woman?

The case for the probabliity of an unidentified person seen in motion in a shadowed area near the front door of the Texas School Book Depository entrance being a woman.

Below: Cropped, enlarged & minimally enhanced Chris Davidson Illustration

The truth and fact of the matter is, that currently, there is not any clear enough photographic evidence, tangible physical evidence, circumstantial evidence or hearsay of any description, which can prove for certain, one way or the other, that the Prayer Person mystery figure is either a man or a woman. "Prayer Person" is the term preferred to be used by persons with no single opinion, or a varying and changeable opinion.

"Prayer Man" is a term coined by JFK Assassination researcher Sean Murphy.

"Prayer Woman" is a term coined by JFK Assassination Researcher Duncan MacRae, although the first known people to suggest that the mystery figure may be a woman were JFK Assassination Researchers Robin Unger and Pat Speer.

The object of this article is not to put forward a case for the what the identity of Prayer Person is, HOWEVER, consider this recorded dictated fact that could perhaps reveal the true identity of Prayer Woman as being Texas School Book Depository employee, Pauline Sanders.

Extract To Consider: Pauline Sanders November 24th 1963.

By Special Agent ROBERT E. HASAM and ROBERT J. ANDERSON Date Dictated 11/24/63 FBI Texas File # 89-43 ",

She said on the morning of November 22, 1963, she went outside to watch the Presidential parade at about 11:25 a.m. She said she did not see OSWALD during this time and she stood in the last line of spectators NEAREST THE DOOR to the Texas School Book Depository building"

Note that she says "nearest the door" and not "nearest the steps"

The main object of this article is to put forward a persuasive case for Prayer Person being a woman, based on analysis of the currently available images.

Prayer woman being identified as being Pauline Sanders is only a considered possibility.

TSBD employee Sarah Stanton is this Author's only other considered possibility, based on the Mytton size analysis of the Prayer Woman
figure, and a recorded interview with the relatives of Sarah Stanton ( See Below )

Identity reveals presented by all other parties studying this unidentified person, by default, must also be classed as speculative, where no verifiable proof of solid hard evidence can be provided.

The currently available images are, unfortunately, only multi generational pixelated copies of Cine Camera films taken on November 22nd 1963 that captured the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository as the Presidential Limo made its journey through Dealey Plaza before, during and after the assassination.

The primary source for analysis of the unidentified, and as yet unidentifiable mystery figure has been extracted single frames from a black and white film taken by press photographer James Darnell.

The frames from the Darnell film, being (arguably)clearer at the mystery person darkened location area, than frames from other films in their copied forms, is the preferred choice for analysis by researchers who debate that Prayer Person is a man vs Prayer Person is a woman.

There are few choices of conclusion available to believe or not believe for readers and viewers of the many presented analysis that have been posted on the internet and elsewhere to be considered.
1. Non determinible
2. Male
3. Female

This article is objective in the fact that being subjective, or having a belief in something, should not be presented by any Authors as fact, or accepted by any judges, readers and / or viewers as fact.

This simple rule should always be practiced when making considerations before reaching a preferred conclusion.

Conclusions reached here, based on the currently available resources, will therefore be subjective, just the same as any arguments presenting any other conclusions can only be, and must also be classed as subjective where no verifiable proof of solid hard evidence can be provided.

Any presenter presenting and trying to convey subjective or objective opinion as fact, is misleading the judge, the reader or the viewer.
The (A knew B, B knew C = C knew A) useless nonsensical equation often used and favoured by many illogical non critical thinking pretentious and narcissistic JFK Assassination researchers such as James DiEugenio, Bart Larry Grayson doppleganger Bart " Ooooh...Shut That Door" Kamp et al, in order to sell merchandise and/or to capture the interest and votes of gullible readers, viewers and judges will not be practiced here. The stupid self serving equation does not represent actual fact, and should not be considered as actual fact by any logical thought process.

Beware of any published articles which produce this often repetative subliminally persuasive illogical equation method of capturing a sometimes gullible audience approval.

First Impressions:

The first obvious impression that one gets when viewing the mystery person, is how small the figure appears to be in comparison to the known and identifiable six feet tall Buell Wesley Frazier, who appears to be looking in the general direction of the subject. Frazier has recently stated that the image is not clear enough for him to identify the mystery person, and that he cannot recall from memory who the mystery person is, or what the gender of the person is.

Frazier's response is understandable given the time period that has passed between 1963, and then being asked for the first time, the Who was the mystery figure?question more than fifty years later.

Some say that Frazier is hiding that he really knows who the mystery person is. The only problem with this accusation however, is that the accusers, as usual, have not one bit of evidence to prove their accusation. They simply want the mystery person to be OSWALD...AT ALL COST...regardless of the researchable evidence which strongly suggests otherwise.

Frazier's height however, does perhaps gives us a clue to the height of the mystery person, assuming that is, that they are both standing in line with each other, are both standing on the same level and are both standing straight, just as the Darnell frames appear to show.
This is of course, and like everything else in any image analysis of this specific subject matter, a subjective analysis.

Researcher John Mytton carried out a computerised graphic height comparison analysis, the results of which are shown in the graphic below.
The John Mytton calculation is based on Prayer Person standing on the landing and being in a straight up standing position. The height of the mystery person has been calculated to be around five feet and three inches tall, the known and verifiable recorded average height of the average American female in 1963.

This first impression and computerised graphic and mathematical calculation of the persons height, logically leans in favour towards the know recorded average height of the average American female in 1963, rather than leaning towards the height of the know recorded average height of the American average male in 1963.

Graphics & Calculations

Let's have a closer look

"In the following gif, the modern colour image was taken very close to the original and can be used to help visualize the height of the top step in the original. According to the position of the camera the top step is relatively straight on, and prayer person is to the left and slightly behind Frazier so by establishing the vanishing point we can then "generously" enlarge prayer person proportionately into the same plane occupied by Frazier "

Zooming in

When we zoom in on the mystery person in the Darnell frames, everything appears very difficult to decipher, other than it is an unrecognisable human being standing in the shadowed area, or a mannequin dummy of a human being placed in the shadowed area for some unknown reason. In the name of common sense and high improbability, let's rule out the latter.

The Zoom

Gradual increase in brightness and contrast and a sharpening filter is used to make the image appear a bit more decipherable. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
At the end of the day, it is all in the eye of the beholder, and it is still difficult to process any information which might give clues to the gender of the mystery person.
There may be a couple of clues revealed however via the zoomed image and by using a bit of imagination.
The following observations are once again completely subjective, but subjectivity is all that anyone can present when presenting an analysis of such poor quality images.
Some researchers claim as a fact that Oswald is the mystery person, and that his hairline is clearly visible in any analysis.
This is of course complete nonsense.
To to make such a claim based on poor quality images is simply not credible research. It is merely a subjective opinion.
Can the gender of the mystery person be determined?
When viewing the above image, some female bias observations can be made. 1. It has been determined in this article that the height of the person has a high probability of being around five foot three inches.
2. The figure appears to have barely visible, but long hair at the back, merged in the dark background, longer than most American men wore in 1963
3. The stance of the mystery person appears to be that of a typical 1960's woman holding her purse or a small bag.
Yet again, all of the above observations while completely possible, are all subjective observations
Also Note: While reference is made to the mystery person being "an average American" there is of course no proof that the mystery person was American.
Let's Recap

1. The determined height of the mystery person stands at a high probability of being around five feet three inches tall. 2. The figure appears to have barely visible, but long hair at the back, longer than any man wore in 1963
3. The figure appears to be wearing a long coat.
4. The stance of the mystery person appears to be that of a typical 1960's woman holding her purse or a small bag.


Based on all of the listed and at present subjective points, I conclude that there is a high probability that the mystery person is of a female gender. The truth of course will never be known until clearer images surface, and a new, and hopefully objective analysis can begin.

Enlarged and minimally enhanced close up view of what is possibly a woman's face, including one minimally enhanced colorized version.

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3378
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2018, 04:50:50 PM »
   Stancak's cartoon of Prayer Man has an inseam on his leg that is over 2 inches longer than Frazier's...The problem with that is Frazier was 6 foot 1/2 inch in height and Oswald was 5 foot 9...So what no one on the Education Forum pointed out to Stancak is that he had refuted himself by showing he could not make his Oswald with a foot on the step work...I had asked Stancak to post his Oswald cartoon for over a year because I knew he could not make it fit...When he proved my point not one of the posters on the EF noticed it...A 5 foot 9 person cannot have an inseam that is over 2 inches longer than a 6 foot 1/2 inch person...Thank you Andrej...Despite your unending excuses and taking a year to post things you have proven Prayer Man is on the landing as Barry Pollard proved a long time ago with his GIF of all Prayer Man film images...This is evidence that Stancak tweaked his Prayer Man image to make it fit which is the equivalent of cheating in the academic world and charlatanism...

Anyone can see that Stancak's Oswald has grotesque legs that are out of proportion with his upper body...We have tech now a days that can replicate things to an uncanny degree of accuracy so these massive errors in size are inexcusable for someone who pretends computer graphic skill...If Stancak's Oswald were stood up on the landing it would look like a comical giraffe man...In other words he has refuted himself...

My arguments for this are on my Facebook "Prayer Woman" page...
« Last Edit: April 28, 2018, 07:24:22 AM by Brian Doyle »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3378
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2018, 11:18:33 PM »
The Davidson enhancement shows, in my opinion, a photographic image that can be said to credibly, definitively display enough photographic data to conclusively say the face is female...Even the Murphy backers admitted it looked like a female when shown but they then lied and said it was a mirage-like illusion caused by photographic quirks...

I assure you the face is that of Sarah Stanton as Frazier told us...

Andrej Stancak doesn't realize he has refuted himself here and proven my point...I have been asking him to post his cartoon graphic of Prayer Man with one foot on the step for over a year and he finally did it...If you take a measuring tool and measure Prayer Man's inseam in this graphic you will see it is 2.5 inches longer than Frazier's...Only that is impossible because Frazier was 6 foot 1/2 inches and Oswald was 5 foot 9...Anyone can see with their naked eye that Prayer Man's right leg is disproportionately long when compared to his upper body...No one on the Education Forum noticed this or pointed it out to Stancak...By refuting himself Stancak has proven my claim that Prayer Man was standing with both feet on the landing...To quote Andrej Stancak as he himself posted on the Education Forum: "If Prayer Man is standing with both feet on the landing then he is too short to be Oswald"...I have been excluded from the Education Forum, even though I have superior skill, because the Murphy gang deliberately shields itself from the truth...

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3378
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2018, 04:45:36 PM »
A credible researcher would see a serious refutation of his work and rush to defend it...An uncredible one would do his best to exploit fatally-biased moderation and hide, pretending that refutation didn't exist and that its presenter need not be recognized because of his being banned...This is the death of academic credibility and free speech as well as community credibility...

What you see here is a pure case of researchers ignoring correct evidence and making up false reasons for its denial...They will never outlive that as far as credibility...

They are literally ignoring proof that my height analysis is valid and therefore Prayer Person can't be Oswald...

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3378
Prayer Woman
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2018, 05:53:04 PM »
The pro-Prayer Person members of the Education Forum do not demand scientific rigor because they only see what they want to see and don't fully test their presentations with full scrutiny of all the evidence...

In Wiegman Prayer Woman is facing forward...Since Prayer Woman's height never changes in any of the film evidence that means for Stancak's theory to be true Prayer Woman would have to have her foot on the step in Wiegman too...However Wiegman shows a position for Prayer Woman that would be awfully awkward for a person to have a foot forward on the step...

Stancak has failed to answer to the scientific details of my height analysis because, if he made a cartoon graphic for Prayer Woman in Wiegman, he would see that the foot being on the step with Prayer Woman's shoulders squared forward would necessarily, by normal physical body movements, require Prayer Woman to come forward due to center of gravity shifting that would cause the person to come forward in order to have one foot on the step...Go ahead and try it on some steps somewhere...
For Stancak's theory to be true would therefore require Prayer Woman to pivot from Wiegman to Darnell (As shown in Pollard's GIF) on her right leg since Stancak shows the right leg as the one being on the step...One does not even need to view Pollard's GIF to see that this one foot down pivot is not what we see in the films nor is such a pivot something a person would do when stretched in such an extraordinary position...A person would step back up to the landing if they made such a turn and would therefore increase in height by 7 inches - but we don't see that in the films...We see Prayer Woman stay the same height...Such a pivot would require Prayer Woman's center of gravity to be over the step and not landing - but one look at Stancak's overhead graphic shows Prayer Woman to be squarely over the landing and not the steps as body movements would require...

To wit:   Stancak's one step down claim has to be repeated in Wiegman because Prayer Woman's height does not change between Wiegman and Darnell...Stancak's theory requires Prayer Woman's right foot to be on the step in Wiegman where Prayer Woman's shoulders are squared to the landing...Physical science requires a person with squared shoulders to shift forward according to center of gravity if they place a foot on the step...All photographic images of the portal show that Prayer Woman is too far back in relation to the features of the west wall of the portal to be forward on that step like Wiegman requires...Stancak himself places Prayer Woman centered on the landing in his overhead image...Stancak's sun plane would illuminate Prayer Woman if she came forward in Wiegman as this physical science requires...
Again, Stancak has refuted himself here and none of the Education Forum members even noticed or held him to the full accountable science the JFK Assassination Community pretends to call for...Sorry if I'm being "long and annoying"...   


Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3378
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2018, 06:18:30 PM »
The above image is from Wiegman...It is criminal that there are hypocrites out there selling themselves as the best researchers on the internet who avoid doing basic photographic forensics on this image...This is what happens when you let individuals run things in a Lord Of The Flies manner without any formal oversight...

Anyone who was competently overseeing the discussion of the Prayer Person evidence would note that Prayer Person has his shoulders squared to the landing in Wiegman...Again, anyone with the necessary evidence analysis skill to participate in this discussion would notice that since Prayer Person never changes height in any of the film images that means for Stancak's theory to be true Prayer Person must have his foot on the step in this image as well...But that's not what we see in the Davidson enhancement Duncan just posted...

I urge anyone following this evidence to go to their nearest step and stand with one foot down on the step from the landing...Then hold your hands up to your face and act like you are looking through a purse...I just did it and the first thing that happened was I felt unstable and started to lose balance...There's only one body reaction that would occur from that and it would be seeking stability which would involve going up to the landing or down to the step with both feet...But this is not what we see in the films of Prayer Person...What we see is stability and a smooth pivot from Wiegman to Darnell...

You must keep in mind that Stancak is assuring us this is all perfectly reasonable and this awkward one foot down stance is perfectly comfortable and is what Prayer Person is doing...No way!...Just the pivot alone from Wiegman to Darnell shown in Barry Pollard's GIF would cause Prayer Person to seek stability and come up to the landing (therefore gaining 7 inches in height)...

This latest Davidson image shown by Duncan shows Stanton's purse in even more detail than before...Though jackasses like David Josephs say these images can't be used and we need better scans anyone with average eyesight can see that isn't true and professional film experts will agree that Davidson does validly show the clearly visible face of Sarah Stanton on Prayer Person and solves the issue...Kamp saw Davidson but lied and said the woman's face was a mirage caused by digital transfer from analog...Bullshit...Both the purse and face are firm images in the original Wiegman celluloid as Davidson proved with his metadata that all the Murphy backers ignored...What you see in Davidson above is Sarah Stanton's right hand glowing in sun as she looks in to her purse...If we could get a family photo of Stanton you would see it would match even at this resolution...(In other words the better scan business is an excuse and we do have credible proof at this level of resolution that the Murphy people are deliberately ignoring)...

I have been persecuted by some very devious and uncredible persons posing as assassination website authorities for posting this correct evidence...The moderators in question obviously do not have the skill to evaluate my evidence so they sided with the popular 95% majority who believed the Murphy theory and removed me from their websites under false pretenses knowing they would get the approval of that 95% majority and would therefore be popular with their membership...The moderators in question do not want to admit a person who they attacked and disparaged with harassment and biased moderation turned around and disproved them with the best evidence on the issue...Lauren Johnson even went so far to claim that I wasn't being banned for my Prayer Man evidence...I was being banned for "repeated behavior" (with Lauren omitting describing that the behavior in question was my site rules-based protest that he was violating his own rules by not acknowledging our proof and punishing its issuer)...The 95% majority of site members I out-argued did not say a word when Lauren pulled that dishonest move...Gordon said I was "Indisciplined" and had insulted moderators and members (gee, I wonder how many people that could be applied to on the EF)...Gordon did not explain how the 3 people who proved the evidence against Murphy on the Education Forum all ended up banned? In any case that wasn't an accurate description because the record on the board shows that I posted a rebuttal to Stancak that went unanswered and soon found myself unable to post...When that happened in Dec 2016 I sent Gordon a PM asking why I had been banned and what rules warranted it? Gordon responded that he did not have to explain and any further inquiries might result in my permanent banning...He then banned me anyway...

In any case Stancak said he would reply and Gordon told him to take his time...Over a year later Stancak finally posted his advanced computer graphic...I have responded to that graphic on my Prayer Woman Facebook page...I also had Graves post my forensic evidence regarding that graphic showing Stancak had given Prayer Person legs that were over 2 inches longer than Frazier's...Instead of responding to my objective evidence Stancak said that we were just trying to get him to post his image so we could find things that were wrong with it (???) and that I was Sauron from Lord Of The Rings...Remember, Mr Gordon has posted that he is very sensitive to language and conduct...The main dutch Prayer Person advocate seems to be allowed to openly troll and flame (while publicly avoiding correct evidence)...

The JFK research community is run by gangs who corrupt moderators in order to ignore correct evidence and remove those who present it...They also make up false reasons for their removal which actually might be a civil law statutory crime and actionable...Jim DiEugenio is shameless...He avoids ever discussing the actual evidence and then sides with moderators against you...Not one Prayer Person advocate responded to my forensic evidence refuting Stancak's graphic...   

Also:   Stancak's overhead graphic (See Below) cheats and does not turn Prayer Person enough towards Frazier...It is inaccurate...Especially concerning the direction Prayer Person's face is looking...It does this by the trick of showing the straight angle of the portal while comparing it to Darnell's 20 degree angle...Frazier's face is also similarly not angled enough towards Prayer Person... Stancak does this deliberately because he is trying to avoid the obvious - that Prayer Person is facing and talking to Frazier and is therefore "Sarah" as Frazier testified...

       There's nothing stopping Andrej Stancak from joining this website and defending his work...Him and DiEugenio won't do that though because they stay in the safety and protection of censoring moderatorship where they don't have to answer the fatal flaws in their claims...

       Again, apparently I am not fit to post on the Education Forum but not one member there noticed that Stancak's sun/shadow plane was off by over a foot...If you look at Darnell it runs up the side of Frazier's body and turns 90 degrees at his collarbone...

« Last Edit: April 28, 2018, 07:41:16 AM by Brian Doyle »

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 882
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2018, 07:51:18 PM »

Also:   Stancak's overhead graphic (See Below) cheats and does not turn Prayer Person enough towards Frazier...It is inaccurate...Especially concerning the direction Prayer Person's face is looking...It does this by the trick of showing a straight angle of the portal while comparing it to Darnell's 20 degree angle...Frazier's face is also similarly not angled enough towards Prayer Person... Stancak does this deliberately because he is trying to avoid the obvious - that Prayer Person is facing and talking to
       Again, apparently I am not fit to post on the Education Forum but not one member there noticed that Stancak's sun/shadow plane was off by over a foot...If you look at Darnell it runs up the side of Frazier's body and turns 90 degrees at his collarbone...

The shadow on Frazier is caused by the horizontal shadow of the ceiling  line not by the vertical portal side.

As Frazier put it.

"Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I say, shadow from the roof there knocked the sun from out our eyes, you wouldn't have any glare in the eyes standing there. "

« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 07:55:13 PM by Ray Mitcham »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3378
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2018, 08:53:12 PM »
I'll withdraw the sun/shadow point for now until I can further examine it...(Though images like Hughes show what looks to be a shadow angle more in my favor)

I'd like Ray to answer the point about the foot on the step in Wiegman and how it is impossible in relation to human behavior and body movements when compared to the films...Specifically why did Stancak avoid doing a mannequin for his foot on the step theory in Wiegman? A correct analysis would involve ALL the evidence which would mean Stancak should replicate Prayer Person's movement in both Wiegman and Darnell dynamically and in relationship to their movements and also the movements seen in the films...

Also the point about Prayer Person's and Frazier's positions in Stancak's overhead image...
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 09:37:11 PM by Brian Doyle »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3378
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2018, 09:36:01 PM »
Stancak is not being truthful in his claim to Graves that Frazier's location of Sarah was too vague to place any firm timing to...Just the opposite is true...Frazier said in both his 6th Floor Museum interview and Garrison Trial testimony when the woman ran up shouting in a low voice I turned to "Sarah" and asked what she had said?...Sarah told me she thought she said the president had been shot...Stancak is not being honest here because the Dunckel Clip establishes that Gloria Calvery is now confirmed to be at the base of the steps in the infamous video of Baker running to the steps...Just the opposite of vague we have a precise time period for this film clip of 25 to 29 seconds after the shots...

What Stancak is not honestly covering is the fact that Calvery was said to have ran shouting the president had been shot on the way to the point that she is seen in Darnell...That would mean that Frazier had already heard Calvery and had already turned to Sarah...When all of the evidence is properly analyzed we have very good reason to think Frazier is well in to the process of asking Sarah what Calvery had said in Darnell...

Stancak alleges that Prayer Person and Frazier are not talking to each other but are instead staring in to space in each other's general direction...But let's look at that a little deeper...The situation involved is just after shots have been fired at Kennedy and the Plaza is in a panic...Gloria Calvery has just completed her run and is at the steps...Lovelady & Shelley are off the steps and on the way up the Elm St extension...Is this honestly a point where people who are witnessing this would turn in each other's general direction and stare in silence or is it a point where witnesses would ask each other what was going on (as they testified)?...

Let's look at what Stancak has to ignore to reach this ridiculous conclusion...He has to ignore that both Jim DiEugenio and Bill Miller both independently noticed that Prayer Person had thick body features...In his Garrison testimony Frazier said Sarah was "heavy-set"...So is Frazier's description as vague as Stancak would like you to think?...

 Stancak's claim that Frazier turned all the way around to ask Sarah what Calvery said had occured after Darnell's clip had ended is way too late for the timing of Calvery running up to the steps...The image seen in Darnell is perfect timing for Calvery to have shouted on the way to the steps and Frazier just completing his inquiry to Sarah...In Frazier's 2013 6th Floor Museum interview he says Calvery spoke to Lovelady & Shelley BEFORE they left the steps...Darnell is 4 seconds AFTER they left the steps, so contrary to Stancak's false claim there is a very precise, razor sharp time established for Frazier's mention of Sarah... And why doesn't Stancak answer Graves' request to repost his isolated cartoon graphic of just Prayer Person and Frazier in the portal? What is Stancak afraid we will see? (Maybe an inseam on Prayer Person that is 2 inches longer than Frazier's?)
Stancak has Shelley on the steps but Shelley is seen walking up the Elm St extension in Dunckel...Nobody mentions this to Stancak on the Education Forum because truthful analysis of evidence is not the first agenda of the Murphy gang...This is more about hunting other members in banning lynchings...

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3378
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2018, 09:53:24 PM »
Thanks for folding Ray...

Hughes does seem to back my shadow angle...We could check out the sun angle on any Nov 22 because the outer portal is the same...

I understand you are running from the rest of my points in public because you can't answer them...The Prayer Person subject is the favorite topic of kooks and cranks and intellectual cowards...

To wit: Ray cannot answer my foot down on the step challenge in Wiegman because he knows I'm right...Stancak avoided a cartoon of Prayer Person in Wiegman with one foot on the step because he knew it looked ridiculous and did not match the seen image in Wiegman...In fact, knowing Stancak's methods, I would say he probably did do a cartoon graphic for Prayer Person in Wiegman and immediately saw it didn't work so he omitted it...He then comes out on the Education Forum and says he's developing a better model (ie the one he is currently using refuted him)...We'll wait another year for Stancak to answer this with Gordon's protection...And Jim DiEugenio's approval of the banning of those who debunked it...

Ray is running like an Olympic sprinter from my scientific proof above that Stancak cheated and fudged his Prayer Person cartoon to make it fit having a foot on the step...This is such condemning proof against Stancak that both Ray and Andrej are literally unable to respond to the direct arguments and evidence...Anyone can take a measuring tool and measure Prayer Person's inseam in the graphic above and see it is 2 inches longer than Frazier's - which would be impossible for a person who is 3.5 inches taller than Oswald...This is evidence that Stancak is a charlatan who cheats to make his bogus theories work and hopes no one will notice...He then actually gets away with posting that he refuses to answer this because "You are just trying to find things that are wrong to disprove me"...This is the level of intellectual/academic conduct that Gordon is OK with while claiming to be "sensitive to quality of content"...

Don't worry Ray...You won't have to give an honest answer because the  Education Forum moderators will protect you by banning the opposition...And they will use the words of the people who are openly refusing to answer good evidence to justify it...           


Mobile View