Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Brian Doyle and 21 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 229296 times)

Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Tis PrayerWoman to see, PrayerMan is not to be....
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #130 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 »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #130 on: May 12, 2018, 07:04:38 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2400
Prayer Woman
« Reply #131 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 »

Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Tis PrayerWoman to see, PrayerMan is not to be....
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #132 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 »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #132 on: May 13, 2018, 09:39:20 PM »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2400
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #133 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 »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 600
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #134 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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #134 on: May 14, 2018, 02:25:38 AM »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 600
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #135 on: May 14, 2018, 03:23:13 AM »
Larry,
regarding testimony... Sam Holland said he saw a puff of smoke on the knoll along with at least two others who stood near him, do you believe them?
Well that's solid testimony so why wouldn't you?
Many saw an exit wound in the back of the head, then there's JBC and his "one shot, turned... then I was hit" scenario, I could go on but there's so much that we as individuals chose to dismiss from testimony, why do you have so much faith in those on the steps? You have to answer this or stop bringing it up to me.

The only one who matters on the steps is IMHO BWF, maybe Lovelady and perhaps Shelley but how could they see LHO on the steps when he was upstairs doing the shooting? With that mentality then they must have been mistaken and it wouldn't be that hard to convince them otherwise given the gravity of the situation with the Feds, cops and SS all listening in. This isn't even conspiracy, it's police work, we have our man, we know it's him and we just do what comes natural. Recollection and memory are flexible things, they change within seconds without you being aware of it and one small observation or thought can change your whole opinion.

The SFM is said to have taken 4k scans of Towner but they haven't been made available yet I don't think, from what we have available now we can see nothing of PM in it.

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2400
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #136 on: May 14, 2018, 05:35:16 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.
No you are dead wrong...

First off Kamp always uses blurry images...I don't know if it because he has trouble replicating images, but I suspect it is because he is purposefully obscuring evidence that works against him...Stancak does the same thing...If we were to do this properly we would get the clearest versions of all three...I'm sure Davidson could provide us with the 'enhanced' versions of all three but for some reason he chooses not to participate in proving the correct evidence in the Prayer Man matter...Duncan has provided us with the clearest version of the 3rd image in his original post in this thread...

If we could see the clearest Davidson enhancements of each of Kamp's images in that "composite" we would see that you are dead wrong in saying the other two images "completely contradict" what is seen in Davidson's enhancement that shows the woman's face...Clarify the other two Wiegman frames you cite and it will show the same face only raised up slightly with the hand held in front of it...There is no variation in "detail" and you will see the same eyeglasses in all the shots along with the purse being held up by both hands...There is no validity to saying Prayer Man changes position...Of course he changes position...The correct description of that position change is Sarah looks down in to her purse in the 3rd frame and angles her head lower...It has no effect on determining the validity of the face which can be seen clearest in that 3rd image because Wiegman's camera had a brief instant of steadiness where it took a sharp shot...

   As I explained before, in the previous deleted thread there was a much wider view of the images you reference and you could see that forehead just to Prayer Man's left in a previous frame...In the sharp frame with the woman's face that forehead is gone from its previous position and cannot be seen...It took me a while to realize it had pulled behind Prayer Man and that was what was causing that freakishly elongated forehead...The reason the frame with the face can't be a distorted frame is because the image and all its contents are noticeably sharper than the other frames...The shutter clicked on that frame when the camera was steady so counter to what you allege the frame is not distorted as can be seen by its sharp contents...

But let's go further in to this...You don't understand how photogrammetry works...Even if the frame was distorted the face itself possesses some pretty clearly defined features that can't be dismissed so easily...There's no doubt that when you look at the woman's face you can see perfectly symmetrical eyes, a nose, and a mouth as well as the cheeks and rest of the face that contains them...This is not some kind of freakish illusion because we can look at Prayer Man's torso and arms and see that the face is squarely positioned where a face should be...Illusions do not possess perfect symmetry of features and they do not appear in the exact place where they should be on the body...The rest of what you write is complete falsity since the explanation of the head being lower in the 3rd image is because Prayer Man looks down in to her purse in that frame and lowers her head to do it...Your saying this behavioral movement that perfectly conforms to what we are seeing is proof of the illegitimacy of the face is ridiculous and has zero merit...I have posted numerous times over the years that you can't dismiss the face by means of any other things in the image because it is legitimate in and of itself and requires explanation...It is forensically contiguous...The explanation is simple...It is Sarah Stanton's face... 

If Davidson were to enhance the other two images Kamp shows in his composite we would see the same face with a hand in front of it looking more forward...We would see the same glasses that are seen in the 3rd image in both other images as well as the same purse...On a side note the hand is even more apparent as a hand in the first two images because you can see the square shape of the fingers better because of the angle...These features will become quite clear if a professional scan of the Wiegman Film is gotten...       
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 05:41:26 AM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #136 on: May 14, 2018, 05:35:16 AM »

Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Tis PrayerWoman to see, PrayerMan is not to be....
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #137 on: May 14, 2018, 07:35:16 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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...
At one time, a while or so back, I felt as though all known occupants of the stairs/landing had been located and identified, with the exception of SarahStanton and PaulineSanders. And, one of the two  would most likely be the person represented by the PrayerPersonImage, with some indication that SarahStanton is in the PP location as filmed, leaving unknown the exact location and identification of PaulineSanders.
With that said, I am unable to conclude sight of a face between WilliamShelley and BillyLovelady. I also do not conclude that WS is looking west/southwest, and is, as it appears, looking east/southeast.

But again, as I am sure you know, film and photographs only reproduce images that rely upon interpretation.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #137 on: May 14, 2018, 07:35:16 AM »

Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Tis PrayerWoman to see, PrayerMan is not to be....
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #138 on: May 14, 2018, 09:23:44 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Larry,
regarding testimony... Sam Holland said he saw a puff of smoke on the knoll along with at least two others who stood near him, do you believe them?
Well that's solid testimony so why wouldn't you?
Many saw an exit wound in the back of the head, then there's JBC and his "one shot, turned... then I was hit" scenario, I could go on but there's so much that we as individuals chose to dismiss from testimony, why do you have so much faith in those on the steps? You have to answer this or stop bringing it up to me.

The only one who matters on the steps is IMHO BWF, maybe Lovelady and perhaps Shelley but how could they see LHO on the steps when he was upstairs doing the shooting? With that mentality then they must have been mistaken and it wouldn't be that hard to convince them otherwise given the gravity of the situation with the Feds, cops and SS all listening in. This isn't even conspiracy, it's police work, we have our man, we know it's him and we just do what comes natural. Recollection and memory are flexible things, they change within seconds without you being aware of it and one small observation or thought can change your whole opinion.

The SFM is said to have taken 4k scans of Towner but they haven't been made available yet I don't think, from what we have available now we can see nothing of PM in it.
Barry,
regarding testimony? You ask whether or not I believe SamHolland and two others who stood near him, when they said that they saw smoke on the knoll, and then you ask why I wouldn't believe their solid testimony, as if you preferred to answer your own question.
Need I remind you sir, that this is the PrayerWoman Thread/Discussion? However, for clarification, I post comments regarding what I consider evidence based conclusions, and respond to comments by other posters. But, I do not consider "responding"to be an effort to be "bringing anything up to you". And, you need to locate and quote me being dismissive about SamHolland's testimony, any eyewitness testimony deemed reliable regarding any JohnKennedy head wounds, or the JohnConnally shot scenario testimony. As for as my "faith in those on the steps", said testimony passes the consistency and reliability level that I find acceptable. And, not one of the eyewitnesses/landing/stairs occupants testified that LeeOswald was among them during motorcade passage.
Bear in mind, BuellFrazier did not testify that LeeOswald was on the landing/stairs as the assassination occurred.
With regards to "mentality" as implied, although touch and go for awhile, about 3 years back, it seems to have returned to a self acceptable level, age considered. So, I see no need to be guided as to how to think.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2018, 02:29:09 AM by Larry Trotter »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2400
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #139 on: May 14, 2018, 03:34:59 PM »
John Butler thinks Prayer Man is a forgery that was airbrushed in to the Darnell and Wiegman films by photo alterers...In my opinion this is a Fetzer-like claim equal to mobile forgery laboratories...

Butler then proceeds to say Prayer Man's visibly thick forearms exclude Prayer Man from being a woman...It never dawns on Mr Butler that visibly stocky forearms also exclude Prayer Man from being Oswald since Oswald was noticeably thin and had thin body features...Butler is all over the place and sarcastically adds that perhaps Prayer Man was an Amish woman who had done hard farmwork and gotten muscular arms...Well Mr Butler, what about Prayer Man's visibly stocky arms showing an indication that Prayer Man was "heavy-set" like Buell Frazier described? Any possibility the stocky arms you see are an indication that Prayer Man had fat arms like "heavy-set" Sarah Stanton? Would a 5 foot 5 woman be a person whose stout body size would elicit a description of being "heavy-set" and therefore can Sarah Stanton be so conclusively dismissed as you do? 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #139 on: May 14, 2018, 03:34:59 PM »

 

Mobile View