Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Brian Doyle, Ray Mitcham, Dale Nason and 45 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 197295 times)

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #130 on: May 11, 2018, 03:04:02 AM »
...
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).

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #130 on: May 11, 2018, 03:04:02 AM »


Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2235
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #131 on: May 11, 2018, 06:21:15 PM »
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 Larry Grayson doppleganger Bart " Ooooh...Shut That Door" 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 Larry Grayson doppleganger Bart " Ooooh...Shut That Door" 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 Larry Grayson doppleganger Bart " Ooooh...Shut That Door" 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 »

Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #132 on: May 11, 2018, 08:18:23 PM »
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 #132 on: May 11, 2018, 08:18:23 PM »


Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #133 on: May 12, 2018, 04:22:40 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...
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: 2235
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #134 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 #134 on: May 12, 2018, 04:47:58 PM »


Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #135 on: May 12, 2018, 07:04:38 PM »
Brian, surely you are not surprised about the PaperDoll, uh, I mean the Mannequin Evidence as presented. Using "what ifs" is not evidence. Especially, however, the so called "face" appears as an artifact/shadow/ off color brick, as the said "face" appears, at least to me, "enhanced".

I do, however, allow for the possibility that PaulineSanders is "in the area". But, I also allow for the possibility for an east versus west mix up, relative to the stated landing position.


There does not appear to be any visible indication that the PrayerPersonImage has feet on different levels of the landing/stairs.

Unfortunately, many of those "less traveled" will see the PaperDoll, uh I mean Mannequin, evidence and consider it factual, instead of a "what if".

It is quite unfortunate, and frustrating as well, to see assertions without reliable provable evidence presented on other forums, but without being able to freely offer opposing viewpoints. Whether banned, or consistently encountering "technical difficulty on one specific forum", the net result is the same. But, where the power lays, the power lies. And, as far as I know/understand,this forum can only control what is presented here. That said, the opportunity to participate on this forum in "open discussions", expressing my interpretation of presentation of JFK AssassinationResearch issues, is much appreciated.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2019, 07:03:35 PM by Larry Trotter »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2235
Prayer Woman
« Reply #136 on: May 13, 2018, 06:09:48 PM »
Larry:   I've looked at Stancak's tiny face in between Lovelady and Shelley in Altgens and believe it is real...I believe it has to be Sanders because Altgens Z-255 is synchronous with the Zapruder-257 time of Wiegman so Prayer Man provably could not be in that spot...

There is a violation of the evidence going on in the present community discussion of this issue...My phone call to Gloria Calvery's son proves his mother is at the steps in Couch/Darnell...The Prayer Man group is doing its best to ignore that Calvery being at the base of the steps in Darnell means she had just spent the distance getting there shouting the president has been shot...So good application of the evidence shows that Frazier had already heard Calvery shouting by the time of Darnell...Good detective work realizes that the reason Frazier and Prayer Man do not shift positions in Couch/Darnell is because they are facing each other and talking to each other...Mark Knight says it is speculation to say Prayer Man and Frazier are talking to each other...Rubbish!...All the evidence points to them doing exactly that...Including their body language which suggests two people looking at each other as people who were talking to each other would do...Mr Knight gives no consideration that during a presidential assassination where people are breaking out in a panic that no time would be lost in responding to events...If Frazier heard Calvery shouting the president had been shot on the way to the steps he most certainly would not have delayed asking Stanton what Calvery had said...Stancak lies and tries to tell us that Frazier delayed and waited until Couch/Darnell concluded to turn 180 degrees backwards to ask a non-existent Stanton what Calvery said...But that is obviously preposterous and is only Stancak's way of avoiding the obvious...Any credible detective would realize that Calvery had shouted on the way to the point she is seen at in Darnell and Frazier is in the process of asking "Sarah" what she said, as he told Fagin in 2013...I have mentioned this many times and each time it gets ignored...I think it is obvious who is doing the "obstructing" here and it isn't us...This is evidence - and better evidence than anything shown by persons fabricating cartoons in order to force Prayer Man to be Oswald...

Someone should remind Mr Knight that I have already shown the evidence he is calling for and Stancak admitted its correctness (and therefore the wrongness of his own offerings)...Stancak has still not corrected his foot on the step mannequin with the graded measuring sticks because he knows he has trapped himself with the precise measurements those sticks restrict him to...If Mr Knight were a more neutral moderator he would recognize this and ask Stancak to please reproduce his foot on the step graphic...Knight pretends none of this ever happened and asks us to produce evidence we already have and he hasn't answered...As far as the claim the graphics are very hard to produce, Stancak has produced many graphics since then trying to show Oswald as the mannequin...So I find it difficult to believe he can't show his 'adjusted' Prayer Man with a foot on the step...

Also, Davidson has come out and declared his Wiegman enhancement shows the face of a woman...So Knight should be asked what good it does for someone who states they believe Prayer Man is a woman to assist someone trying to show it is Oswald? Isn't that a little goofy? Also Davidson's enhancement comes from an original image and directly shows what is in that image as his metadata proved...Davidson is a vastly superior piece of evidence that is based on an original frame and accurately shows what is in that frame...Stancak is just fabricating cartoons to try to force Oswald as Prayer Man...Knight ignores Davidson and forces the entire community to accept Stancak as the standard while falsely accusing us of not producing any evidence...         
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 06:26:51 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Prayer Woman
« Reply #136 on: May 13, 2018, 06:09:48 PM »


Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #137 on: May 13, 2018, 09:39:20 PM »
Brian: All that "I can see" when viewing Altgens6, next to the BillyNolanLoveladyImage facial area to his left before seeing the WilliamHoytShelleyImage right side, is what to me appears to be BNL's left ear.
When viewing,I believe the WeigmanFilm, I am unable to conclude seeing a face near the east wall on familiar versions of the scene, but there is an "enhanced view" that indicates a face of a seemingly small person. Although "inconclusive" for me, I accept as fact that MsPaulineSanders, although not positively seen and/or identified, has to be somewhere on the landing/stairs area.
But, that said, I remain open to a possible east versus west "directional mix-up" when indicating their "occupant location" on the landing.


BuellWesleyFrazier, and possibly BNL as well, indicated that an understandably upset GloriaLittleCalvery was "broadcasting verbally" what she had just witnessed to the stairs/landing occupants as she attempted to return to her work area at the TSBD Building. And, there is sufficient testimony by BWF about his conversation with SarahDeanStanton to confirm what GLC had announced.

In any event, sufficient evidence indicates that the apparently female images seen entering the west side of the stairway actually represents GLC, and MsKaranHicks.

And, by the way, I recently came upon a post/reply I had made, on another dedicated forum, with a sub-forum dedicated to the JFKSr Assassination, that was posted in about April, 2014, where I had indicated my conclusion that the PrayerPersonImage represented a female, as well as a possible connection to SDS. Although, I believe the discussion has been around longer than 4 years.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 11:31:15 PM by Larry Trotter »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2235
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #138 on: May 13, 2018, 09:59:11 PM »
I always thought Lovelady was jug-eared and that was his left ear too...The clearest blow-up of Lovelady in the portal in Altgens shows a forehead and bridge of a nose on that left ear...It is indeed a face and I credit Stancak for it...

It made me take another look at Shelley because his image makes it look like the back of his head should be covering that area...It made me realize Shelley is actually facing the exact same direction as Lovelady and they are both looking down Elm St at the limousine...The image that he is looking at the follow-up cars on Houston is an illusion caused by the side of his face...
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 10:01:39 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #138 on: May 13, 2018, 09:59:11 PM »


Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #139 on: May 14, 2018, 02:25:38 AM »
Brian, if you go to Duncan's thread on EF, "Prayerman or Prayerwoman Research" on page18 halfway down there's a composite of three Wiegman frames focused on PM, that's what I'm referring to. The frame where we see "a face" completely contradicts what is seen in the other two both in position and detail and most especially the position, his neck is now missing and he has a longer forehead, show these frames to an expert if you think it's worthwhile. I know what I think and I have zero confidence in it being even close to the truth of who the person really was.
There is a alternative to your idea that someone came and stood behind PM for that one frame where the face appears,
what your seeing is a distorted frame, that expains the stretch forehead and all that detail that makes up the features of a face which has dropped to the chin, collar bone and neck.
P18 of the PM or PW thread on EF. The face is neither centred to it's body or focused on the head's postion in the previous frames.