Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 20 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 229622 times)

Offline Mark A. Oblazney

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Not This Member!
    Thumbs Up
    This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!

  • Posts: 135
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #120 on: May 09, 2018, 03:04:45 PM »
It was a dude taking pictures with a camera, in my humble opinion.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #120 on: May 09, 2018, 03:04:45 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2400
Prayer Woman
« Reply #121 on: May 09, 2018, 05:08:49 PM »
Not possible because of the Davidson enhancement...I tried to get Davidson back in to the issue but he said that squabbling over the identity of the person was not something he wanted to do...Not a very professional approach to research or responsibility towards what he discovered in my opinion...In my opinion Davidson doesn't want to get involved in the politics that follow...No serious photo analyzer could look at the Davidson enhancement and come away thinking it was anything else but a woman...You can see the Davidson enhancement at the end of the first post in this thread on page 1...In response to my request Davidson said that he would make one comment on the matter...That he thought the face he uncovered was that of a woman...

When Duncan first enlarged the Davidson enhancement I posted it to the Deep Politics board and every single ROKC member who saw it agreed it looked like a woman...Realizing they were in trouble they then lied and said it was a photo quirk that just so happened to look that way by accident...What liars...They just don't want to admit their theory is bogus and aren't afraid to mis-lead the world and JFK research community with a debunked theory...

The only reason people said it was a camera was because of the glowing object...Even Stancak admits that object is Prayer Man's right hand glowing in sun...I am the discoverer of that and Stancak never once credited me for it...Duncan's further enhanced images in that first post show what is clearly an open purse or pocketbook that Sarah Stanton is looking down in to...That's why her hands and arms are in the "praying" position...I have very little respect for JFK commenters who skip all the germane evidence that shows Frazier was talking to Sarah at the instant of the Darnell frame in order to make one liner snipes against the obvious...

I didn't take Sandy Larsen seriously when he and Graves said Gloria Calvery was the lady on the steps in Darnell...Since Larsen thought Prayer Man was Oswald I didn't really take his posts seriously...After I spoke to Calvery's son by phone I learned that indeed that was his mother on the steps in Darnell...Once you understand that you then realize Calvery had already finished her run to the steps shouting the president had been shot and therefore Frazier was well in to his reacting to that shouting and turning to Sarah to see what Calvery had said...

The JFK research community has decided to trade its credibility for the Prayer Man issue...We have a photo of Sarah Stanton's face from the Wiegman frame...We have rock solid circumstantial evidence in Calvery, as well as Frazier's admission that he was speaking to Sarah..And we have a clearly wide waist and pudgy cheeks seen on Prayer Man that conforms to "heavy-set" Sarah and varies from the thin Oswald...This evidence is deliberately ignored by the Prayer Man cult in order to have Andrej Stancak once-remove the evidence to computer graphics where he can divorce the original images enough from their reality source to massage them over to images of Oswald...We are forced to watch Stancak ignore already established proof so he can psychologically impose repeated images of Oswald or Oswald's height in to the portal scene in order to reinforce the idea that Prayer Man is Oswald...Never mind that for the the last few years of trying every time Stancak comes up with a newer better model it still flops and refutes his case...This repeated failure is given preferential treatment and those who post the correct evidence are ushered off the board with false moderation claims and their evidence is ignored...

It's time to break up the presumptuous clique... It has done enough damage already to credible research and those skilled members who present it...And even worse it has thrust to the forefront people who should obviously never be allowed near the inner sanctum of credible JFK assassination research...These people know Prayer Man is Stanton...They are just maintaining the cult and its forced impunity for preferred members who don't have to respond to intelligent evidence...
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 05:16:05 PM by Brian Doyle »

Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Tis PrayerWoman to see, PrayerMan is not to be....
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #122 on: May 09, 2018, 08:10:15 PM »
Hey Brian, although I do not dispute the "facial enhancement of PrayerWoman" attributed to ChrisDavidson, I am still not able to "embrace" said enhancement. That said, based on my "interpretation of what I do see", added to other image viewing, along with multiple eyewitness statements/testimony, I have concluded that the image most likely represents SarahDeanStanton, but could represent PaulineRebmanSanders.

I have seen no evidence to indicate any male to be in the place of the PrayerPersonImage. And, with an exception for "opinion", I have not seen or read anything to indicate any "dude taking pictures with a camera". To me, the "object in hand" is most likely a cup containing a beverage being consumed during lunchtime. Additionally, the eyewitness testimony indicates that LeeHarveyOswald was not on the landing during filming from the motorcade.

And, that is where I am today, as I was yesterday, and most likely to be tomorrow. Again, I make no claim to be the first to reach said conclusions, but I am confident that I will not be the last.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #122 on: May 09, 2018, 08:10:15 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2400
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #123 on: May 09, 2018, 08:31:16 PM »
The glowing object has already proven to be a hand because one of the images Duncan posted (page 1 post 1) varied in contrast just to enough of a degree to show knuckles and slits between the fingers...Besides, a woman would not be holding a cup and opening a purse with the cup in that hand...

We've proven it isn't a cup because if it were the white porcelain would be seen in other photos...If you look at Darnell there is no cup...

It is kind of clear why Davidson doesn't assist...He's helping Stancak split hairs on moot, already-debunked graphics that avoid the main evidence...
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 08:52:13 PM by Brian Doyle »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 600
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #124 on: May 11, 2018, 02:42:21 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...No serious photo analyzer could look at the Davidson enhancement and come away thinking it was anything else but a woman...You can see the Davidson enhancement at the end of the first post in this thread on page 1...In response to my request Davidson said that he would make one comment on the matter...That he thought the face he uncovered was that of a woman...

An expert would compare all available frames not concentrate on one. Once he does this he would notice what is most obvious to anyone doing the same, that this cannot be this person's face simply because it isn't even even centred on it's head, that's why the "woman" has a massive forehead btw because it's a complete distortion of what we see in other frames that show nothing of the kind.
You have film(itc Wiegman) with more than one frame showing your subject, which experts do you know that concentrate only on one? Obviously, ones with a case to promote.

Davidson himself went out of his way to isolate Prayer man's face after Duncan found the "woman's face", why would he do that if he supported what Duncan found? He too found a woman or to be more exact, a "woman's eye"(you know, like one with mascara on) and it looks nothing like the previous monstrosity but at least this time it is central to PM's head and not on his neck and collar bone.
His enhancement, the one where he tried to bring out the facial features of PM is not available anymore, since it was posted on Photobucket and the links are dead, you were involved in that thread, you may have seen it.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #124 on: May 11, 2018, 02:42:21 AM »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 600
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #125 on: May 11, 2018, 03:04:02 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...
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. [/size][/font][/i]

The fact that it's been universally excepted that if PM is standing on the landing then it cannot be LHO, is motivation enough to want to find out if he might actually be on the top step. Stancak is exploring that possibillity with what he and others think they see in Darnell, a man with his left leg bent.

On another question that you asked earlier that I meant to answer, the Towner film has been looked at carefully and there just isn't enough clarity in the doorway area to pick out PM, the best you can see is a flash of BL's shirt as if he's waving IIRC, far too dark to pick out PM. The Hughes film is actually better, BL can be seen clearly and there's even a spec of something behind him but no more than a that, a hint of someone in PM's position captured before Wiegman turns on(there's a nice gif of this somewhere).

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2400
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #126 on: May 11, 2018, 06:21:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
An expert would compare all available frames not concentrate on one. Once he does this he would notice what is most obvious to anyone doing the same, that this cannot be this person's face simply because it isn't even even centred on it's head, that's why the "woman" has a massive forehead btw because it's a complete distortion of what we see in other frames that show nothing of the kind.
You have film(itc Wiegman) with more than one frame showing your subject, which experts do you know that concentrate only on one? Obviously, ones with a case to promote.

Davidson himself went out of his way to isolate Prayer man's face after Duncan found the "woman's face", why would he do that if he supported what Duncan found? He too found a woman or to be more exact, a "woman's eye"(you know, like one with mascara on) and it looks nothing like the previous monstrosity but at least this time it is central to PM's head and not on his neck and collar bone.
His enhancement, the one where he tried to bring out the facial features of PM is not available anymore, since it was posted on Photobucket and the links are dead, you were involved in that thread, you may have seen it.
Wrong, wrong, & wrong...

That same expert would notice what I already posted in the previous threads...That thread was erased, but in it I showed how in the other photos you mention there was a person to Prayer Man's left...That person isn't visible in the Davidson enhancement so we have to ask where he went? The answer is he pulled in behind Prayer Man and created that freakish appendage people are referring to as the elongated forehead...Bart Kamp tried to use the elongated forehead to dismiss the woman's face as you are doing...But that isn't how credible photogrammetry works...Credible photogrammetry determines the correct interpretation of what is seen in photographic images and you still haven't provided an explanation for what is seen in Davidson's enhancement...The Prayer Man people tried to say the woman's face was an illusion but that is obviously ridiculous because the face is too solid a thing in the photo to be a mirage...So, I totally agree that more than one Wiegman frame should be examined...And when you do you find the elongated forehead has no connection to the face and therefore can't be used for a cheap dismissal of the face that still requires adequate explanation...Even better - the other Wiegman frames are not as sharp but they do show the same woman's face without the forehead...I'm sorry but what you wrote is not even close to being a valid scientific analysis of Davidson's enhancement...

Besides the above, your claim is wrong because the face is centered on the head and body...The face itself is pretty much a representation of the head...The reason Kamp's claim that the face is an illusion is ridiculous is because the face itself is located in a position that is exactly where a face should be according to human anatomy...That face is perfectly centered according to Prayer Man's arms and torso that are also visible in the enhancement...The face's expression also forensically matches a woman looking in to her purse so there is reinforcing behavioral evidence that is completely off the radar of the Prayer Man people...So contrary to what you and Kamp assert, the opposite is true and the face does perfectly conform to body location...The reason it is the exact size and place for a face on a body is because it is Sarah Stanton's...I tried to call Stanton's grand niece last weekend but got no answer...I am sure if we can get a photo of Stanton we can confirm that is her face...Also, if we can get that next of kin to allow us to send her the Davidson enhancement maybe she or some other relative will confirm it is Sarah...

Davidson and Unger could help with this but they are now part of the political group that refuses to give any assistance to our truthful discoveries...Sorry Barry but an expert will quickly confirm the woman's face seen in Wiegman is a real part of the Wiegman original and does credibly show a woman's face (Sarah Stanton)...   

PS: The clearest images of Darnell show a radiator where Stancak has his bent leg...I have posted this several times and it gets ignored by those who apologize for people who are wasting the community's time by further pursuing what they already know to be false evidence...
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 06:25:37 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #126 on: May 11, 2018, 06:21:15 PM »

Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Tis PrayerWoman to see, PrayerMan is not to be....
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #127 on: May 11, 2018, 08:18:23 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The fact that it's been universally excepted that if PM is standing on the landing then it cannot be LHO, is motivation enough to want to find out if he might actually be on the top step. Stancak is exploring that possibillity with what he and others think they see in Darnell, a man with his left leg bent.

On another question that you asked earlier that I meant to answer, the Towner film has been looked at carefully and there just isn't enough clarity in the doorway area to pick out PM, the best you can see is a flash of BL's shirt as if he's waving IIRC, far too dark to pick out PM. The Hughes film is actually better, BL can be seen clearly and there's even a spec of something behind him but no more than a that, a hint of someone in PM's position captured before Wiegman turns on(there's a nice gif of this somewhere).
As for the LeeHarveyOswald As PrayerManTheory, among the known eyewitnesses/occupants of the stairs/landing/doorway area, not one testified that LHO was there, among them, as the motorcade drove past. And, I do believe there was testimony as well from some that they had not seen him there at the time. That said, why is there motivation to make it possible for LHO to be the person represented by the image aka PrayerPerson?

There is no evidence indicating a male, with a right foot on a lower step, with a bent left leg, and the left foot on the landing.

Barry, because it is "universally accepted" that if there, that has to be the stance, indicates an agenda to make something possible as an "if" evidence of a positive. So, with evidence that contradicts an "if", and no evidence to support said "if", what value are the mannequins? Is it an attempt to promote a supposition shy of reliable evidence?

You are not likely to find anyone less skilled in photography/film than myself. However, I fail to understand how a view from a moving camera can be more reliable than Ms Towner's film. So, I suppose, my question should be whether or not "an expert" has attempted "an improved view" of the doorway area as seen on the Towner Film?It certainly appears to have a much better angle than the existing MovingCamera views.

So, Barry, in answer to your questions, appreciated by the way, that is where I am, have been for a while, and most likely to remain.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 01:43:13 AM by Larry Trotter »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #127 on: May 11, 2018, 08:18:23 PM »

Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Tis PrayerWoman to see, PrayerMan is not to be....
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #128 on: May 12, 2018, 04:22:40 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The glowing object has already proven to be a hand because one of the images Duncan posted (page 1 post 1) varied in contrast just to enough of a degree to show knuckles and slits between the fingers...Besides, a woman would not be holding a cup and opening a purse with the cup in that hand...

We've proven it isn't a cup because if it were the white porcelain would be seen in other photos...If you look at Darnell there is no cup...

It is kind of clear why Davidson doesn't assist...He's helping Stancak split hairs on moot, already-debunked graphics that avoid the main evidence...
Admittedly a conclusion on my part, and with any scientific ability suspect, none the less, to me it appears to be a cup, and receiving reflected sunlight, but not direct sunlight.

Again as stated, a cup being held by the right hand, possibly with assistance from the left hand when lowered in a holding and/or "prayer" position, with a purse attached/strapped to the mostly out of sight left forearm. And, the purse is also receiving reflected sunlight.

And, whether right or wrong, as stated, a basis for said conclusion(s). 

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2400
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #129 on: May 12, 2018, 04:47:58 PM »
Once protected by censorship of the opposition Stancak is formulating his final evidence...The dishonest way he is getting around our Sarah Stanton evidence is by inventing a new person in the portal who doesn't exist and labeling her Stanton...That way he can pretend all the evidence that makes Stanton Prayer Man can be ignored and he can use his imaginary Stanton as a one size fits all solution to his Prayer Man problem...

Other researchers participate in this self-delusion by pretending they are helping Stancak with technical fine-tuning of his modeling...This is a psychological escape mechanism for evading any direct confrontation of our Prayer Man evidence that proves it is Sarah Stanton...Davidson publicly posted that he believes his enhancement of the Wiegman frame shows the face of a woman...So the question that begs is why help fine-tune images of Oswald as Prayer Man if you think Prayer Man is a woman? What is the point and, with all the strict conditions put on evidence by the community, why is one group allowed to continue to take thread space on a theory they already believe isn't valid?   

As far as Stancak's latest offering:   He is claiming a woman who is not seen in any of the film images is Stanton...He has fabricated her image and placed her in Darnell even though she is not visible in Darnell...In short this woman is imaginary yet Stancak is being allowed to ignore all our fact-based evidence via this non-existent person...Stancak interprets this woman from a small face seen in between Shelley & Lovelady in Altgens...Only that small face probably belongs to Pauline Sanders not Stanton...There are only two women in Darnell...One is Sanders who said she was in the last row and therefore had her back to the plate glass window and the other was Stanton...If you look at line of sight in Altgens the candidate for the small face is Sanders who is in a position to show up in that spot in Altgens...Stanton is Prayer Man so she can't be in that spot in Altgens since she is out of view and behind the west wall of the portal...

Stancak shows Shelley on the landing in Darnell...Shelley has already been established as walking up the Elm Street extension with Lovelady in Couch/Darnell...By doing this Stancak shows a serious lack of fidelity to the evidence and willingness to show images that are in serious violation of the reality that really exists in the film imagery...The community continues to practice a gross double standard to the direct detriment of its members simply because those who offer this inaccurate evidence support the Murphy Theory...

David Josephs showed a shadow line that was fairly accurate...The shadow of the west wall went up Frazier's right side...Stancak's shadow line is off and too far west... 
   
« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 08:37:26 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #129 on: May 12, 2018, 04:47:58 PM »

 

Mobile View