Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 16 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 359856 times)

Offline Duncan MacRae

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 271
    • 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.

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2018, 04:30:44 PM »
Answer the question Brian. What angle do you believe the sun cast on the entrance of the TSBD at 12.30. Quite a simple question  to answer by a genius like yourself.

Or are you afraid to say?

Stancak based his rebuild on the Darnell photo shown here.

Not the one you have linked above. Nice try.

Now answer the question.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2018, 04:46:28 PM by Ray Mitcham »

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2018, 04:47:03 PM »
If you can't answer my question, Brian, I'll tell you the answer.

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2018, 05:04:58 PM »
All your comments are just opinions. The one fact you can't change is the position of the sun at 12.30 on 22nd Nov 1963. And  you are too stupid to answer my question.

As I said Stancak based his build up on the Darnell photograph ~NOT the Weigman  you are quoting. Apples and Oranges, Brian

Go on have a go... tell me your what angle the sun is at 12.30 on the top of the steps.

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2018, 05:25:13 PM »
Brian, wake up. Stancak base his postings on the Darnell photo I posted above NOT the Weigman photo you are mistakenly discussing.

As far as discussing anything with anybody else,  with your childish insults, you are once again showing why you have been banned from so many forums.

You can't even answer a simple sun angle question. 

Care to try it yet?

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2018, 09:45:16 PM »
Admit it Brian, you haven't  clue how to work out the angle of the sun. Now get back in bed and try to work out how to do it.

I'm off for now. I'll be back tomorrow to see if you have tried to work it out, but I don't expect much change.

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 600
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2018, 05:48:42 PM »
Brian, no other evidence from that time shows anyone stood close to BL's position in Wiegman being hit by a shadow, that has to be considered too. Check the Murray images that show that reporter you mentioned before, there's a set of three taken within perhaps 30 seconds of each other where he's in that position on the steps(which seems to me to be slightly west of BL in the Wfilm), you can find them online in a gallery but not here. In the first two he's not being hit by shadow at all but in the last you can see it on his back, that is the true shadow line coming of the west wall 20-30m later. In the Cook film Youtube vid with Trask as well, two men in light colored shirts walk up the steps just west of the railing, at no time does shadow touch them, so what is it we are seeing on Lovelady? Could it be a combination of the film, the camera, the shirt and the portal making it hard for Weigman to reveal the true shadow line? I mean it's not hard to see how his film makes shadow much darker than it really was, even on the car in front of him the shadow being cast by the fins on the back of it, they are pitch black, that may be a major factor. Obviously I'm no expert and you'd probably need to consult one to be convinced but this is a fact... Wiegman is alone in putting shadow on anyone in that position and all other evidence rufutes it, so it's probably  a freak, an anomily and there is no reason to rely on it when everything else tells us something else. Search for that Murray gallery, check out the set of 3 images with the reporter and you'll find that anyone stood to his west 20m before  would be in full shadow if on the top step or landing, again the third image of three shows the shadow on his back and he was clearly closer to BL Wfilm position than he was to PM. Welcome back.

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 600
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2018, 06:41:29 PM »
Sadly Brian, the machine I was on before isn't booting up anymore so I can't repost it, on a good note though, as I mentioned to you that wasn't actually my gif, I copied it from (I think) one of the two PM threads on the ED, so it could be still there, it's most likely one of Chris Davidson's. On that issue let me point something out to you, "they" might argue that if he's on the top step in Weigman, then putting a foot up on the landing wouldn't actually make him seem taller to Darnell at all. Related to that, think about how many people have considered him to be way back on the landing near the glass, well Robin Unger posted something that showed he cannot be, because we would see more of the west wall, what Robin posted convinced people paying attention that PM has to be right at the edge of the landing or over it, yet and this shows you how awkward a thing this is to work out visually, even after posting that Robin himself in a comment in late 2017 still considered that he might be back there in the corner. My only point is, it's decieving, he looks further back than he is, so he could look shorter than he is, he could be on the top step, I don't think so but I just really don't know.  One more thing, both Ray and I have had PM threads deleted after bickering with you, so bite your lip, count to ten or go warm some milk and let's all request threads be locked and not deleted because of what a pain it is. Finally we have to teach ypou how to upload your own stuff that you've saved to your HD, you do save images don't you?

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 600
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2018, 04:54:09 PM »
Brian, how can PM's hand be in direct sunlight if Lovelady and that reporter are partially shaded?

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 600
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2018, 04:57:18 PM »
The reason Andeaj is ignoring the shadow on Lovelady must be because he doesn't trust it. It doesn't seem to gel with what Ray was referring you to and other images of the steps that show the shadow line after the assassination, so hasn't he explained why he dismissed it? Has anyone?

As for the odd PM stance in his mock up, it's clearly not right but that doesn't mean a man cannot put his foot on the step in a more natural and comfortable fashion, that reporter had no issues doing it but you might note that his leg his rather well bent but he might be only 5'5 IDK(can't find the image where we see this but it's most likely an Allen or Murray). In Duncan's first post there's a mistake or typo, he wrote that PM's height was calculated by John Mytton to be 5'3 if "he was stood on the top step", that's incorrect, it should read 5'3 if he was on the landing, if he was on the top step he would be around 5'9. That's the problem, you can't prove he's not on the top step much like you cannot prove it's a woman.

I don't see why(playing DA) why he can't be facing the street in Wiegman and on the top step and then as someone approaches the bottom of the steps to come inside, he can't turn sideways to give them room and in doing so put one foot on the landing. My only question is, does that mean he's on the same step as Lovelady at one point and doesn't that create a problem visually? Did we conclude previously Brian, that BL moves up to the top step in Wiegman or not? IDR.

The "evidence" suggesting he is female is as nothing compared to those dozen or so frames of Darnell when seen in motion that tell me it's a man. Sorry and I've gone over this before but the so called enhancements have shown me nothing new, that is, nothing trustworthy, the only thing I'm actully quite sure of is that it's a male. That's because of the superior evidence of Darnell in motion and "stabilized", there's no question in my mind and I'll not refer to it again, the handbag, the buttons, the fingers you mentioned and that monster of a face with the massive forehead, they're simply not credible.


Mobile View