Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Thomas Graves, Markus Ell and 39 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 212026 times)

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2402
Prayer Woman
« Reply #90 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 »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2402
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #91 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 #91 on: May 01, 2018, 11:17:00 PM »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 575
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #92 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: 575
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #93 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 #93 on: May 01, 2018, 11:48:45 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2402
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #94 on: May 01, 2018, 11:53:33 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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?

If you read what I'm writing that was already explained...If Prayer Man was on the step in Wiegman he would be illuminated by the sun plane Stancak shows in his graphics...This was already spelled-out in clear detail in my posts...

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 575
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #95 on: May 01, 2018, 11:58:26 PM »
You also said his shadow was a foot off... wth?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #95 on: May 01, 2018, 11:58:26 PM »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 575
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #96 on: May 02, 2018, 12:00:53 AM »
Reporter with his leg up in Murray

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2402
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #97 on: May 02, 2018, 12:10:06 AM »
If you were following my arguments...If you take Prayer Man in Wiegman and place his body over the step like it would be when his weight shifted to the lower leg, when you square his shoulders in that position on the step like Prayer Man does in Wiegman, his left side would be illuminated by the sun you see in your Murray image...

I have yet to see anyone answer this correct argument...
   
Also, the Murray image is probably pretty closely aligned with the sun/shade line...Which means Frazier would have the west wall shadow on his right side as seen in Darnell...

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #97 on: May 02, 2018, 12:10:06 AM »

Online Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #98 on: May 02, 2018, 12:12:00 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.
Mr Pollard, I was about 245 miles away from DealeyPlaza at 12:30pm, CST on 11/22/'63, so I did not witness the event, but I remember hearing about it within minutes of the occurrence.. So, considering there is no eyewitness testimony, and several eyewitnesses were available, that places the accused LoneGunmanAssassin, LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Elm St entrance landing at the time, added to what I do see, along with testimony as to who was there, is the basis for my conclusion. To me, it appears as though it took about half a century for someone to decide an image of an un-identified person is LHO. The LHO as PrayerMan Theory to me defies common sense.

You sir, do not know what I have studied and what I haven't, but FYI, I spent a great deal of effort on the PrayerPerson subject, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter. I remain committed to my "conclusions" that the PrayerPerson image represents a female, then employed at the TSBD, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter as it occurred and do not believe the "HoaxTheory".


What are "most of my queries"?
« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 12:18:53 AM by Larry Trotter »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4845
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #99 on: May 02, 2018, 12:16:43 AM »
I don't know if it's a woman or a man, but there is no good reason to think that it's Lee Harvey Oswald.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #99 on: May 02, 2018, 12:16:43 AM »

 

Mobile View