Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Larry Trotter and 25 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 210000 times)

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
Prayer Woman
« Reply #110 on: May 03, 2018, 06:57:12 PM »
On the Education Forum because Gordon has announced my banning the usual suspects are now assembling in the Prayer Man thread and enjoying their victory by censorship...Those who correctly challenged the Murphy Prayer Man theory are now unable to post and the playing field is now skewed in favor of Stancak and the Murphy theorists by means of filtering the opponents...

David Josephs presented an interesting graphic that shows the shadow line in Darnell and pretty much confirms my placement of the sun/shade border...Because Josephs and Stancak are in league that Oswald is Prayer Man, neither notices that Josephs' confirmation of my shadow line proves that Stancak's shadow line in his overhead graphic is off by as much as a foot...Stancak continues on presenting his overhead graphic as legitimate and accurate and the moderation that demands very strict adherence to "requirements" at the threat of banning continues to not notice this fatal flaw in Stancak's graphic that misrepresents a major component of the forensic details in Darnell...After all, people who ignore huge scientific errors that constitute disqualifying failure at a scientific level are not "argumentative" so therefore they compliment each other for their friendly tolerance...

David Josephs had detoured the topic in to one of his classic potpourri's of mixed up irrelevancies that drag the thread away from the on-point evidence...Stancak is courting him because then both of them, with the assistance of Gordon's moderation, can avoid answering how Stancak's 3 inch error over the length of Prayer Man's leg refutes his own thesis and proves Prayer Man could not have had a leg on the step...You have to remember David Josephs was over at the Deep Politics board saying he demanded precise methodology in claims...When you show him that methodology he then acts like a school boy on a school play yard moving the goal posts as the bullies decide how the softball game will be run...Low and behold after Gordon's restriction of the opposition Stancak seems to have developed amnesia over his 3 inch error on the length of Prayer Man's leg...The Prayer Man supporters all come in DiEugenio-style and compliment Stancak on his impressive work...

Stancak fails to disclose that the placement of Prayer Man forward in the landing due to the sunlight being on his hand was a forensic concept that was entirely developed by myself...Stancak is now adopting it and pushing it in the evidence without honestly crediting me for it...

Stancak continues to ignore, with the Education Forum moderation's assistance, that any computer graphic done for the Wiegman image will refute his foot on the step claim...If Stancak shows a cartoon for Prayer Man with his shoulders squared to the landing and his body centered over the step, as it would be if his weight went to the foot on the step, then his mannequin would pull in to the sunlight Stancak shows in his own graphic...He would refute himself once again...The Education Forum moderation sided with Stancak on this saying people were putting an unfair burden on him to create these difficult graphics...However, if the EF moderation were paying competent attention to what was being argued here it would realize this evidence could be seen in the current overhead graphic Stancak has shown for Darnell...Like the 3 inch too long leg, Stancak has refuted himself here once again and none of the thread-dominating pro Murphy posters even notice...
   
Over on Deep Politics David Josephs is trying to force a court room standard because he is trying to restrict the obvious nuances in the evidence that all point towards the lunch room encounter being real...David is a real cheater because he is pretending he is demanding that legal standard in order to sharpen the evidence when it is obvious that he is doing it to exclude evidence he knows is true...David is free to post here...He won't do it because he knows he'll lose hard...David is avoiding answering what a voice stress analysis test would do for Baker's testimony...DiEugenio too...What a dishonest gang of boys...
« Last Edit: May 04, 2018, 05:48:21 AM by Brian Doyle »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #111 on: May 04, 2018, 04:50:26 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is not a question of bias, Mr Pollard. After careful study, I reached a conclusion, and since I never concluded "agreement", therefor "never not refuted it" applies. Quite simple actually. Also, since I have reached a conclusion that there is no "PM", I see no need for any evidence about any "PM" activity.

Thanks for the conversation, but I stand by my stated conclusion, and if you wish to express disagreement, that is fine. But, admittedly, I am not sure of your conclusions about said subject matter. However, it appears as though you agree with the LeeHarveyOswald as PrayerMan Theory, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter is a Hoax Theory. And that sir, is your privilege. But, without sufficient reliable provable evidence, I see no indication of changing my stated conclusions.


Larry, make no mistake your input is most welcome, here's my position. I'm sure it's a man, that he's standing close to the southern edge of the landing, perhaps on the step (but I'd like to see that proven), seems to be drinking from something in Weigman, from the Darnell frames it looks enough like LHO to make me wonder too but I've never claimed it's him, in fact I found someone in the Cook film outside the TSBD that matches up nicely enough. So hardly a disciple but dispite all the argument against the very idea I still wonder because I believe it is actually possible for him to be somewhere other than the SN.
One of the major things against it beiing LHO is the fact that no observation in the entire photographic research history of this case seems, to me at least, to stand up today, so the odds are very slim but I'd still like put a little money on it being good.

You did say that the Lunchroom encounter was part of the reason why you doubted it, I then asked you if this person could get there before Baker and you said you won't even consider it but you already have, just not carefully enough. Even if the frames he is last seen are around 35secs post Z313 that still gives him 45-50secs to get up there and that's assuming that the 90secs is accuarate which yes I do not take that seriously, like the pigeons.., or Jackson, Brennan, Jarman and Co, Holland, Bowers etc, etc(actually from that group Baker and Bowers are probably the best but completely accurate? No chance).
« Last Edit: May 04, 2018, 04:54:22 AM by Barry Pollard »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #111 on: May 04, 2018, 04:50:26 AM »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #112 on: May 04, 2018, 05:40:17 AM »
Brian, thanks for your last response, I've no clue about drawing figures and realistic ratios, tbh I bailed on that class hated it and I haven't paid much attention many observations on that part of this but I took in some and I'm with you in essence because I've said it doesn't look correct to me either(for me it's that bent leg from Darnell), okay I just looked it up, one good hit on the net with feedback says 47% is a good average, so are you saying that Oswalds was closer to 40%?  Also why can't he drop 2" off the leg and add it to the body?Because of Oswald's own known leg/body ratio?

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #113 on: May 04, 2018, 06:16:38 AM »
Because it would violate the body proportions as you say... The torso you see in the image with the overly long leg is correctly proportioned...I hope you understand that the very fact alone that we are talking about Stancak adjusting the mannequins to make them fit shows how he is winging it and making it up as he goes along and that is why he is using cartoon graphics in the first place because he can make them do what he wants...Stancak cheats...There are clearer versions of Darnell...I've seen them...The reason he uses this less clear one is because the clearer one shows that there's no bent leg there...In the clearest shots you can see the radiator in the spot where Stancak's bent leg would be proving beyond a doubt that his one step down theory is impossible...These are not honest or honorable researchers we are dealing with here...Stancak has already seen this which is why he offers to pose a mannequin with both feet on the landing...

Stancak shows a flat-footed mannequin standing next to a photo of Oswald...The leg length on that mannequin is approximately 43% of Prayer Man's body so Stancak varies from 47% to 43% and no one notices...That variation is fatal when attempting computer graphics that are supposed to show differences of less than an inch...It means he is adjusting to fit wherever he can force it to look like Oswald:

       
Barry: Do you understand that the image Stancak shows in the above link where he shows that Oswald's leg was 43% of his body length (as shown in the photo of Oswald) proves that there is no scientific possibility to adjust the leg on Stancak's mannequin in the foot on the step graphic? Do you understand that once Stancak proves that Oswald's leg was 43% of his body length (as he proved with his photo of Oswald) that there is no possibility of making any adjustments to his mannequin with a foot on the step because at that point he has exceeded the parameters that would make it possible for Oswald's foot to reach the step?

Prayer Man is not 5 foot 2 in the Darnell image...Prayer Man is slightly above Frazier's chin which would make him 5 foot 5... This is important because if a 5 foot 5 Prayer Man theoretically had a foot on the step then when he rose to the landing he would be about 6 foot high and equal with Frazier - which would also disqualify him from being Oswald...   
         
« Last Edit: May 04, 2018, 05:14:11 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #113 on: May 04, 2018, 06:16:38 AM »

Online Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #114 on: May 04, 2018, 02:31:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Larry, make no mistake your input is most welcome, here's my position. I'm sure it's a man, that he's standing close to the southern edge of the landing, perhaps on the step (but I'd like to see that proven), seems to be drinking from something in Weigman, from the Darnell frames it looks enough like LHO to make me wonder too but I've never claimed it's him, in fact I found someone in the Cook film outside the TSBD that matches up nicely enough. So hardly a disciple but dispite all the argument against the very idea I still wonder because I believe it is actually possible for him to be somewhere other than the SN.
One of the major things against it beiing LHO is the fact that no observation in the entire photographic research history of this case seems, to me at least, to stand up today, so the odds are very slim but I'd still like put a little money on it being good.

You did say that the Lunchroom encounter was part of the reason why you doubted it, I then asked you if this person could get there before Baker and you said you won't even consider it but you already have, just not carefully enough. Even if the frames he is last seen are around 35secs post Z313 that still gives him 45-50secs to get up there and that's assuming that the 90secs is accuarate which yes I do not take that seriously, like the pigeons.., or Jackson, Brennan, Jarman and Co, Holland, Bowers etc, etc(actually from that group Baker and Bowers are probably the best but completely accurate? No chance).
Barry, well before I posted and/or expressed any conclusion regarding PrayerPerson, I developed said conclusion. And, by studying research as well as locating occupant information, then locating and viewing statements, affidavits, and sworn testimony, is how I was able to reach my conclusion. But, as stated, I make no claim to be the first to conclude PrayerPerson to be PrayerWoman. The film/still offers some, but very little identification information. However, I base my conclusion on PrayerPerson being in the corner of the quite small area, and with a slight to their right head turn and basically in line with the camera facial features. But again, my conclusion is 90% testimony based.

As for the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter, DPD Officer ML Baker is approaching the entrance and PrayerPerson is still there. So, since it is my conclusion that PrayerPerson is actually PrayerWoman, I see no reason to consider the possibility of the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter involving PrayerPerson. But, the polite conversation is appreciated.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4831
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #115 on: May 04, 2018, 10:08:10 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Brian, you are posting far too many links to the Education Forum. It needs to stop now.
You need to find a solution for your inability to stream your own images or referenced images to this website.
I'm sure you have the financial means to get this very simple low cost problem fixed.
Member's should not need to go elsewhere to view every image that you reference.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #115 on: May 04, 2018, 10:08:10 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #116 on: May 06, 2018, 04:59:45 PM »
Stancak is right back to his pseudo-science again...He realizes his previous computer graphics were bogus because of the overly long leg he made on Prayer Man so he's trying to get around it...Stancak presents a very scientifically loose 7 1/2 inch block designed to represent the length of Oswald's head...He then crudely places 7 1/2 of these roughly-sized blocks over Oswald body and claims it represents an accurate measurement of Oswald's body size...Stancak then goes to Darnell and re-creates this crude measuring device over Prayer Man's body saying it is an equivalent...He then claims this proves Prayer Man's foot is on the step...

As I mentioned before, Stancak is using a type of brainwashing technique where he repeatedly places images of Oswald or references to Oswald's height in to the Darnell frame...This completely scientifically invalid method is a crude type of conditioning device that fools the brain into believing Prayer Man is 5 foot 9 and is therefore Oswald...What Stancak doesn't tell you in this latest offering is that he has no visible evidence that Prayer Man's feet go below the landing in Darnell since you can't see them...Stancak is trying to say that a simple body ratio of Prayer Man's head extrapolated to the rest of his body proves by body proportions that Prayer Man's foot reaches the step...

The flaw in what Stancak presents is that it assumes Prayer Man is Oswald and therefore all figures in the Prayer Man position must conform to the height ratio he has established using Oswald's head in comparison to the rest of his body as the standard...What is wrong with this is the head/body proportion ratio for Oswald does not apply to everyone...A person like Sarah Stanton could be shorter and stockier and still have a 7 1/2 inch head size...In other words, Stancak once again offers a totally uncredible scientific claim that is easily refuted and claims it finally solves the issue...Transposing Oswald's head to body length ratio on to others is not a valid scientific method...As I said before, the only head to body size ratio science that can be used for Prayer Man is Prayer Man's as seen in Darnell (Though as it turns out Sarah Stanton's could also be used since it is her)...

Stancak makes more serious scientific mistakes in his latest offering...His head size lines that he overlays on the portal are not placed according to accurate scientific perspective dimensions...Look at Stancak's blue dotted measuring lines...They are not accurately shown...There are two perspective planes in the Darnell shot...One is that which conforms to the axis of Darnell's camera lens...The other is that which conforms to the front wall of the Depository...Stancak has drawn his lines according to the camera lens perspective that is seen in the frame of the photo...Stancak's lines conform to this square frame...However any portrayal of linear measurements in the portal must also conform to the perspective of the front wall of the building...You can see this mistake by measuring the distance of Stancak's dotted line from the top of each decorative column on either side of the portal...If this line were drawn accurately, according to the correct perspective, the distance from the line to the top of the column would be equal on both columns...Stancak has entered more easily refuted Rube Goldberg hack science that blows up at a glance and no one points it out to him...To see what the proper perspective plane is for the portal look at the top frame of the window and how it conforms to this angled perspective...The lines Stancak draws should do the same thing...

Another mistake Stancak makes is he draws dotted lines that are supposed to represent the width of the top step...He doesn't notice he has drawn a line over the aluminum window frame at its base...

If you notice Stancak prefers blurry images for his quack presentations...There are much more clearer versions available but Stancak doesn't use them because they will show the flaws in what he is presenting more clearly...

When you point-out that Stancak has drawn a bent leg over what more clearer versions of Darnell show is a radiator no one passes that on to Stancak and it goes unanswered...Those clearer versions of Darnell also show a width on Prayer Man that is well wider than Oswald's narrow waist...

Stancak has not adjusted his previous computer graphic Prayer Man and his 3 inch too long leg because there is no way to adjust it and it proves Prayer Man can't be on the step...

Meanwhile back in the real world of valid science if Stancak had drawn accurate measurement lines they would show that Prayer Man's head comes up just above Frazier's chin...If Stancak applied his science to this measurement it would prove that Prayer Man is 5 foot 5 1/2 inches if his feet are both on the landing...If Prayer Man was 5 foot 5 1/2 and was on the step that would mean if he rose to the landing he would be 6 foot tall and also prove to not be Oswald...   
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 05:22:48 PM by Brian Doyle »

Online Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #117 on: May 07, 2018, 10:55:49 PM »
I really do not want to discuss "other forums", but I have noticed what appears to be "clever versions" of film stills/pictures of the TSBD Elm St entrance landing/doorway area as the motorcade passes that seem to contain "add-on" images for occupants. So, if researching the issue, maybe any "new views" should be compared to older versions for clarification, including comparison of "newer" images of PrayerPerson to older versions as well.

 I especially am unable to understand how any mannequin representing the PrayerPersonImage can be placed on a lower step, with one foot on the landing, as there appears to be no evidence to support such stance.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 10:58:07 PM by Larry Trotter »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #117 on: May 07, 2018, 10:55:49 PM »

Offline Duncan MacRae

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 227
    • JFK Assassination Videos
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #118 on: May 08, 2018, 11:59:53 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stancak has not adjusted his previous computer graphic Prayer Man and his 3 inch too long leg because there is no way to adjust it and it proves Prayer Man can't be on the step...

On their false assumption that the figure is male:

I see that they are trying to analyse the person's inseam.

The inseam is the area from the Crotch to the botton of the Ankle.

Any alleged inseam is invisible in all images, and is completely incalculable because of variations in the Human length of leg anatomy, irrespective of a person's height, and variations in Shoe/ Boot heel size worn and styles of Pants worn/ Trousers worn/ Overalls worn etc.

Any top of any alleged inseam worn could be tight to the crotch or many uncalculable inches away from the crotch, depending on the degree of bagginess or non bagginess of the material worn.

These logical potential variations leave any alleged inseam measurement totally incalculable. This is just common sense and not Rocket Science.

Offline Matthew Finch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #119 on: May 08, 2018, 03:45:50 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why are the moderation policies of some other site any of our concern?

I recall this being his Modus Operandi on the previous iteration of this forum. Enlightening us hourly (or more frequently) on discussions being had on other forums. I'm still unsure of what, if any, interest this is supposed to hold for any of us here.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #119 on: May 08, 2018, 03:45:50 PM »

 

Mobile View