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

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 255047 times)

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #80 on: April 28, 2018, 11:15:23 PM »
Quote
The location of Prayer Man with one foot down is determined not by his feet but by the relation of his figure to different landmarks in the doorway. These relationships dictate Prayer Man location, and there is just no wiggling room there. Prayer Man could not stand with both his feet on the top landing (in Darnell) because he would not fit the shape of Prayer Man body (being too tiny and having arms located higher compared to what is seen in Darnell) and more importantly, his right elbow would be too far from the edge of the red brick column. Of course, I have tested this variation in my pilot analyses, and will show it in the next work which will address Prayer Man's location and body height.


Stancak speaks Hungarian so I will give him a break for not speaking English as his first language...However the above statement has zero scientific validity...

Stancak is not correct that Prayer Man's body proportions as seen in Darnell preclude him from standing on the landing...There is absolutely no scientific credibility to that claim what so ever...

What Stancak is trying to say is that Prayer Man cannot be standing on the landing because he is visibly too short to be Oswald...And that his arms would be higher if Oswald were up on the landing...Obviously Stancak is restricting his scientific input to only that which conforms to Prayer Man being Oswald while ignoring everything else...That right there alone dismisses Stancak from credibility because valid science is always objective and goes by what is empirically seen and not by what is assumed...What Stancak is saying is he dismisses possibilities simply because they don't match Oswald while forgetting he has shown no proof that it is Oswald...This would usually disqualify a scientist from normal consideration amongst peers in any credible forum...

Stancak forgets that he still hasn't answered the overly long leg issue and that it is still the best determiner of whether Prayer Man is on the step...He's not registering that Prayer Man has to be on the landing because he himself has already proven Prayer Man can't be on the step by his failure to get that leg to reach...

His distance of the bricks from Prayer Man's arm claim is completely without merit...The answer to that is Prayer Man is on the landing and the distance from the bricks is what you see in Darnell...
 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #80 on: April 28, 2018, 11:15:23 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #81 on: April 29, 2018, 10:45:26 PM »
I wish somebody would tell Stancak that he's drawn a bent left leg over the radiator in his latest offering on the Education Forum...

I have seen a clearer version of Darnell and it shows that what Stancak is representing as a bent left leg in his Prayer Man graphic is actually the radiator in the front entrance window...

Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • PrayerWoman it is to see..PrayerMan is not to be..
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #82 on: April 30, 2018, 09:13:01 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can only work with what Chris made available in his original Gif.

I've sharpened the frames a little more and added a little bit of color to them.

The detail simply isn't there to enhance any further without degradation taking place.



For clarification, I only see what I see, and am unable to embrace Mr Davidson's "enhanced" PrayerWoman. And, I continue to base my conclusions about the image known as PrayerWoman/ PrayerPerson/PrayerMan on what I do see, un-enhanced, and a sufficient amount of eyewitness/occupant statements/testimony, including statements that LeeHarveyOswald was not on the TSBD entrance landing at the time.

That said, I maintain agreement with others that the image is that of a female, and base said agreement on my own conclusions, as well as testimony as to who was not present on the landing, added to testimony as to who was there. And, the most likely candidates for the image aka PrayerWoman are Ms SarahStanton and Ms PaulineSanders, with a slight edge favoring Ms Stanton, IMO.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2019, 06:41:54 PM by Larry Trotter »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #82 on: April 30, 2018, 09:13:01 AM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #83 on: April 30, 2018, 03:57:05 PM »

As far as the face, the best version of Davidson is Duncan's last image in his first post in this thread on page 1...That image contains enough data to make a definite conclusion by photogrammetry standards...In fact, when it was first posted on the Education Forum every single ROKC member who saw it agreed it appeared to be female...The Prayer Man group is getting away with a falsehood by saying we need a better scan...While it wouldn't hurt, the truth is the Davidson enhancement has enough resolution to make a definitive conclusion that Prayer Man is Stanton as Debra Conway agreed...

The woman seen in Davidson has to be Sarah Stanton and no one else because we have now confirmed that Gloria Calvery has reached the base of the steps in the Couch/Darnell clip...The Prayer Man people are deliberately ignoring that all known logic requires Calvery had just finished shouting "the president has been shot" on her way to the point at the base of the steps that she is seen at in Darnell...I have posted this many times and it has gotten no response from the Prayer Man people...Kamp responded saying I am lying about speaking with Calvery's son...It has to be Stanton for this reason and for the reason proper analysis will show Prayer Man has stocky body parts like "heavy-set" Sarah...It is my opinion that nobody has a right to ignore this evidence...

There can be only one conclusion, and that is Stanton has just finished her shouting run and Frazier has turned to Sarah and asked her what Calvery had just said...Prayer Man and Frazier face each other and never move in Darnell even though other people have moved significantly...That is because they are focused on each other and talking to each other...

Stancak knows he is in trouble with this so he went out and invented a new woman and placed her behind "Shelley" and Frazier...Not only is there no woman in that spot but there is also no Shelley on the landing at that juncture since the one thing Kamp did get right is the fact Shelley and Lovelady are seen going up the Elm St extension in Couch/Darnell...The face Stancak is calling Stanton is probably Sanders...Stancak desperately needs to create this artificial Stanton because he is claiming Frazier turned around 180 degrees and spoke to Stanton behind him after the Couch/Darnell clip ended...Because Stancak operates under the assumption that Prayer Man must be Oswald he is forced to do this and is ignoring our conclusive evidence...He is just doing an exercise in ignoring obvious evidence...

The strategy of the Prayer Man side is to ignore all evidence that refutes their claim and hijack all venues with corrupted biased moderators

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #84 on: April 30, 2018, 09:32:41 PM »
Stancak has attempted a defense of his Darnell image computer graphics on the Education Forum...This is usually where people's eyes roll and they get bored with the minor details but it is also where Stancak finally loses if you are following this...So all one or two of you out there pay attention...

Stancak admits that his Prayer Man mannequin with a foot on the step doesn't work so he tries to solve it by offering two options...The first is his Prayer Man cartoon with a leg on the step and the second is a new version with both feet on the landing...Stancak then uses the logic that since the Prayer Man with both feet on the landing doesn't match certain features of Prayer Man in Darnell that proves Prayer Man can't have both feet on the landing...This is, of course, completely scientifically invalid and not based on any credible scientific methodology, but Stancak doesn't let that get in the way of his pseudo-analysis computer graphic science...

It is somewhat dumb-strikingly unbelievable how Stancak goes about in achieving this claim...What he does is take his Prayer Man mannequin and shrink him down by a visible percentage in order to get him to fit the size of Prayer Man in Darnell while having both feet on the landing...He then goes to show how his Prayer Man cartoon is too thin and therefore doesn't match the features of Prayer Man in Darnell...I'm not sure which is more unbelievable, that Stancak tries to get away with this Rube Goldberg methodology or that the Education Forum members stand back and don't notice?

What Stancak is doing is conditioning his readers that his Oswald-like 5 foot 9 cartoon mannequin is the main reference point and going measure by which to determine all things Prayer Man in photo analysis...He then uses the ROKC method of showing images of his cartoon mannequin interposed to varying degrees with the image of Prayer Man in Darnell...By doing this Stancak allows himself to slowly work his cartoon Prayer Man into a reference-able entity by which to make scientific determinations...But in reality Stancak's cartoon Prayer Man mannequin is actually something that has no basis in reality what so ever except being a slavic-like man pulled out of the options for male figures in his computer modeling program...Like ROKC, what Stancak is doing is repeating his cartoon Prayer Man image often enough in his presentations that he has now subtly, psychologically worked it in to being an accepted given that can now be used to discount other things...

Meanwhile the best representation for Prayer Man is the actual image of Prayer Man as seen in Darnell...The only valid computer graphics that can be used as proxy figures designed to run Prayer Man through scientific photo analysis tests are graphics that look the most similar to Prayer Man in Darnell...What Stancak has done is slowly switched the main reference-able image of Prayer Man from that seen in Darnell to his computer graphic cartoon mannequin...Stancak is now referring to these figures as being interchangeable, but then makes the important leap to discounting the real film image of Prayer Man by means of his artificial figure...When he does that he violates the rules of science because the original Darnell Prayer Man is always the more scientifically precise figure...In short, Stancak is trying to get away with murder scientifically...

Typical of Stancak and ROKC, he is looking through the telescope backwards and trying to discount the real Prayer Man by means of his admittedly-faulty Prayer Man mannequin...Stancak lines his shrunken mannequin with both feet on the landing up with the real Prayer Man in Darnell and says you can see the mannequin is obviously too thin so therefore Prayer Man can't be on the landing...He justifies the shrinking by saying you need to do that to match the heights of both figures...This, of course, is scientifically absurd but that doesn't stop Stancak who stretches legs and shrinks people to make his Oswald as Prayer Man theory fit...

As far as credible photo analysis science the way to go about this is to look at the Prayer Man figure in Darnell directly (or use original images as Gordon required)...What Stancak is trying to work around is that Prayer Man is as big as Prayer Man in Darnell on its own, separate from Stancak's computer modeling mannequin...I don't think Stancak realizes he has once again used graphics that are precise enough to refute his own claim...He's done that again here and I'll explain why...Since Stancak's mannequin is designed as an average build fit man, by overlapping it with Prayer Man in Darnell and showing Prayer Man is more stocky, what Stancak is actually showing (once again) is that his 5 foot 9 Oswald-like thin figure is too thin to fit Prayer Man's real dimensions as seen in the film image...So, in other words, he has refuted himself once again and proven our case for us while trying to do the opposite...What Stancak has really proven is Prayer Man's dimensions are too stocky to match Oswald's...

Oh, and by the way...Stancak still hasn't answered for the science that proves his 2.5 inch too long leg on his mannequin proves that Prayer Man can't be on the step...Stancak keeps telling us he'll try to solve that and let us know...But he's not answering to the science that shows there is no way to solve it once Stancak realizes he has trapped himself within the precision of the rest of his portal dimensions...As I said before...His portal dimensions are pretty accurate...If Stancak were a better scientist he would realize he has nowhere to go as far as finding that extra 2.5 inches...He has proven his Prayer Man doesn't fit...He's going to have to surrender to the fact it proves Prayer Man isn't on the step...

There's another thing most people don't notice...Both Kamp and Stancak do not use the best resolution images...When I was on the Education Forum part of the rules that were set was all debaters had to use the best images...Both Kamp and Stancak use blurry images because they are trying to hide the fact their claims don't match the visible images when closely examined...If Stancak were to use the best, sharpest images of Prayer Man it would be even more apparent that his cartoon figure does not match Prayer Man...

Finally, Stancak is showing a yellow outline of where he thinks Prayer Man's bent left leg is in Darnell...I have found a clearer image of Darnell and you can clearly see Stancak has outlined a bent left leg over what is clearly the radiator in the Depository lobby...

Stancak's shorter arm for a shorter person claim is garbage and if a professional photo analysis expert were to look at his claim he would see that Stancak has shrunken Prayer Man far more than the maximum 12 inch depth difference perspective shift would require...As I said before, Prayer Man's arms are longer and thicker not because he has a leg on the step that Stancak can't make work but because he is the thicker, stockier "heavy-set" Sarah Stanton - as we've more than proven...

This post should be cut & pasted to the Education Forum if they are really interested in the truth...


 
   
   
     
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 12:03:45 AM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #84 on: April 30, 2018, 09:32:41 PM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 5605
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #85 on: April 30, 2018, 09:37:43 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
          This post should be cut & pasted to the Education Forum if they are really interested in the truth...

If the Education Forum wanted to know what you think they wouldn't have banned you.

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
Prayer Woman
« Reply #86 on: May 01, 2018, 05:33:51 PM »
No, I didn't get banned for nothing on the Education Forum...I was banned because I was well in to the process of refuting the ROKC, Bart Kamp Prayer Man theory...There is a failure on that forum to respond to provably bad claims...As soon as someone starts to refute the Murphy theory they find themselves accused of vague violations and then have trouble posting...

Stancak's latest post is a good example of what passes for good research on the Education Forum:


Quote
The leg-to-body ratio in the mannequin I showed for the overlay study (and which I am not transporting into Sketchup) is 47% which is the middle of the normal range 45-50%. Of course, people can and do stand this way if they wish so. Please try it yourself. It would be actually unpleasant to stand with both legs straight and on the top landing as shown in my recent post because the person on the top landing would have to bend considerably towards his right in order to have his head aligned with the vertical pole of the aluminum door frame.

However, you apparently did not spot the differences between the two postures which make your top landing-both legs straight possibility very unlikely.

Are you now a new Saruman?
   

Whenever Stancak is confronted with a direct argument he never gives a straight answer...He immediately detours the discussion off in to one of his side track run-arounds...He does that here when confronted with the science that disproves his computer graphics...Stancak is being unfairly aided by having me banned from the board on false charges...By having my responses removed from visibility Stancak deliberately avoids answering the scientific points that refute his work...

Stancak is deliberately avoiding answering my point that his Prayer Man mannequin has an inseam and leg that is 2.5 inches longer than that of his Frazier mannequin...Stancak avoids answering this because he knows he can't...So he tries to wiggle in a leg length percentage of body argument to get around it...What gets ignored on the Education Forum, and no members ask Stancak, is he still hasn't accounted for not being able to get Prayer Man's leg to reach the step without cheating and stretching it...Stancak avoids recognizing that he has provided measuring stick gradations in his graphic...He won't give a direct answer to his trapping himself because he has a measuring stick measurement for Prayer Man in his graphic that goes from his foot to his head and therefore there is no place to reduce the figure by 2.5 inches...If he pulls Prayer Man down by that 2.5 inches then Prayer Man will be too short to match Darnell...This is why Stancak dishonestly shrinks Prayer Man's entire body in order to get around this...Stancak's run-around above is his way of avoiding giving a direct, scientific, honest answer to that and therefore he fails to provide adequate input to forum members...This is what passes for rigor and "quality of content" on the forum and those who demand academic rigor are scolded like children for being unacceptably "mean"...So surprise surprise, here we are again with the fatal flaws being spelled-out in credible detail and going unanswered once again while Stancak is praised by Education Forum members and I am referred to by disparaging names...

Typical of Stancak he follows-through with yet another crazy science non-sequitur by saying Prayer Man can't be standing on the landing because he would have to bend his head too much to line up with the aluminum window frame...Stancak says this on the Education Forum and no one challenges him on it...His claim there is, of course, absurd and has zero scientific merit...It is, once again, based on self-referencing his cartoon model as the new norm and putting it before the original image...Gordon chided me for not using original images (even though I was)...Yet here Stancak openly refers to a provably inaccurate computer model and uses it as reference to deny what is seen in the original Darnell image...All with no problem what so ever from the research community... Stancak is referring to his overhead cartoon graphic of the portal - but I have already proven it is inaccurate using the shadow line...

There is simply no validity to Stancak's claim that Prayer Man cannot be standing with both feet on the landing because his head would not line up with the aluminum frame...The answer to his false point here is the original Darnell image shows Prayer Man's orientation...Prayer Man is standing with both feet on the landing, as proven by Stancak's inability to get his leg to reach the step, and his head lines-up with the window frame...Correct photo science would use these original orientation points to determine where Prayer Man is in the portal...Stancak then enters the absurdity that it is actually more comfortable to stand in the awkward position of having one foot on the step while having your arms raised and looking in to a purse...I will post it again in case people still don't get it...Go to a set of steps and stand with one foot on the upper landing and one on the step and then hold both your arms up in front of you as if you are looking in to a purse...Then rotate 75 degrees to your left and see how comfortable it is...Your body will spur you to step up to the landing in order to overcome the feeling of uncomfort and lack of balance...Yet Stancak informs us the both feet on the landing position is actually the more uncomfortable and the rest of the site signs off on it with silence...(At least those who haven't been moderated anyway)...

If I were able to post on the Education Forum I would ask Stancak to give an honest answer to the Wiegman image...If you look at Stancak's own overhead graphic you can see that if he turned Prayer Man to his orientation in Wiegman with his shoulders squared to landing that Prayer Man would pull his body over the step as body behavior requires...I have posted this numerous times and it was ignored...I'll post it again...If you go to some steps and square your shoulders like Prayer Man in Wiegman and then place a foot on the step from the landing you body will center over the step due to it placing its weight on that foot...In the posture where the shoulders are squared that will bring the shoulder line over the step like I showed on my Prayer Woman Facebook page...By Stancak's own illustration Prayer Man's left shoulder and side would then be illuminated by sunlight as shown in his graphic...Stancak is not being truthful...The reason he didn't do a similar graphic for Prayer Man in Wiegman as he did for Darnell is because he knew he would have refuted himself even more badly than he did in Darnell...If he properly illustrated Prayer Man in Wiegman according to his squared shoulders Prayer Man's left side would be illuminated by sun...Also with squared shoulders it is extremely awkward to have a foot back up on the landing - yet, extraordinarily, Stancak claims it is perfectly comfortable and the better position...Not to mention being even more awkward for the 75 degree turn to Darnell...Graves is a happy puppy and misinterpreted my squared shoulders argument...What I just posted is the correct one and if I could confront Stancak directly on the Education Forum I would ask him to please answer it...This evidence doesn't need a new graphic to answer...It can be answered via the images already shown in his Darnell graphic...

Bart Kamp is obviously afraid of information that he knows disproves him so he is trying to take advantage of unfair censorship and remove it from the site...   

     
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 06:28:56 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Prayer Woman
« Reply #86 on: May 01, 2018, 05:33:51 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #87 on: May 01, 2018, 11:17:00 PM »
Exactly Larry...All Stancak is really doing is taking computer graphic images of people the way he would like them to look and placing them in a re-created Depository portal...But if you look at what I wrote, the legitimate scientific aspects of his models actually come in against him when properly analyzed...

Look at what Education Forum moderator Mark Knight wrote in the Prayer Man thread:   


Quote
The results do not CONCLUSIVELY make Prayer Man Lee Harvey Oswald. But they certainly make the possibility of Prayer Man being Oswald a lot more likely.

I like your work, Andrej.


This is a prime example of the problem with the Education Forum...Its moderators are biased towards the Prayer Man issue and automatically come in in favor of Stancak's claims no matter how badly they are flawed...I have just written literally pages of scientifically valid refuting arguments of evidence that even Stancak admitted were correct...Moderator Knight ignores this proven evidence and sides with Stancak and his garbage graphics despite this... 

Apparently the level of scientific rigor that moderator Knight practices on the Education Forum does not exclude ignoring proof that Prayer Man's height is provably too short to be Oswald...Just like we never said a word...

No one on the Education Forum notices that Stancak's mannequin's head is turned 70 degrees from the direction he is facing in Wiegman but in his overhead graphic it is only turned 30 degrees...

Stancak's "science" is garbage and is based on trying to force computer graphics cartoon images of male figures over the top of images of Sarah Stanton in Darnell...
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 11:27:26 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #87 on: May 01, 2018, 11:17:00 PM »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #88 on: May 01, 2018, 11:26:53 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In reply, and still getting used to this format, LarryTrotter posted:

As I recall, some years back now, probably about 2013, I read a claim on another forum that the virtually impossible to identify image seen in shadow on the Elm St entrance landing to the Texas School Book Depository was actually accused Lone Gunman Assassin LeeHarveyOswald.

For various reasons, I failed to see any validity for said claim, especially being made some 50 years after the 11/22/'63 assassination of USP JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr, and critical wounding of TG JohnBowdenConnallyJr. It just doesn't seem possible for LHO to have been among several occupants, most, if not all who knew him, or at least recognized him, and yet after 50 years to then be "discovered" standing on the landing as the shooting occurred, and therefore could not have been a LGA.

To me, the image as viewable, appears more likely female and not male, but there is sufficient landing area occupants/eyewitnesses that testified that LHO was not on the landing at the time of filming within seconds of the shots being fired.

But, there is more evidence that the pictured/filmed image is not LHO, as DPD Motorcycle Officer MarrionLewisBaker, along with TSBD Building Superintendent RoySansomTruly testified that they encountered LHO on the 2nd floor, at the lunchroom, at about 90 seconds after the last shot. And, he was there when they reached said floor.

To claim that the image is of a male is one thing, but to promote the LeeHarveyOswald is PrayerManTheory is to me in defiance of common sense. Far too much evidence indicates otherwise.

That said, I base my conclusion about PrayerWoman on what little I see, added to known area occupants/eyewitnesses testimony regarding the steps/landing area at or about 12:30pm CST on 11/22'63. And, said conclusion indicates to me that Ms PaulineRebmanSanders and Ms SarahDeanStanton are  the two most likely candidates, with a slight edge to Ms Stanton as PrayerWoman.

That said, I have yet to place any accuracy and/or validity to any "produced picture enhancement" that I have seen so for. But I do wonder, as I wander, if any effort has and/or can be made to "enhance" the shaded entrance landing area as seen in the Tina Towner Film of the JFK Sr Motorcade as it turns onto Elm St just seconds before the shots were fired.

For clarification, I make no claim to be the first to dispute the LHO as PM Theory. And, I am confident that I am not. However, I do not recall ever not disputing said theory, and I am confident of that as well.

If you read the original thread on the EF I think most of your queries could be answered Larry, the why now and what have you. Basically the theory is not constricted by testimony, you seem to class testimony as solid evidence and thus proof for PM not being Oswald whereas modern detectives have rejected such notions, they're going in the oppositite direction, good enough to support a case in court sure but to find the truth...

Lunchroom encounter is not set in stone, both Truly and Baker are human and stories can stray from facts with just the slightest provocation.

I don't know how you see a woman in Darnell, you'd have to explain it.
From your last statement above it seems that you've never even given the PM theory any credit at all, ever, even before checking the testimony?

Do you think it's possible that BWF(the only one there of real significance) was convinced that he might have seen LHO on the steps minutes affter the shots instead of during the motorcade? You think Fritz could manage that on his own?  That's all it would take.

"To claim that the image is that of a male is one thing...", to me it's the only thing that and the fact that it looks enough like him for this to continue.

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #89 on: May 01, 2018, 11:48:45 PM »
Brian,
Weigman shows PM facing the front, shoulders square, yes, then Darnell shows him angled, so his body moved obviously. But you keep saying that PM would have to have put a foot down... Why? Why can't he be on the steps already in Wiegman and put a foot up to the landing for Darnell?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #89 on: May 01, 2018, 11:48:45 PM »

 

Mobile View