Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Brian Doyle, Thomas Graves and 46 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 200241 times)

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #140 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: 2253
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #141 on: May 14, 2018, 05:35:16 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.
No you are dead wrong...

First off Larry Grayson doppleganger Bart " Ooooh...Shut That Door" 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 Larry Grayson doppleganger Bart " Ooooh...Shut That Door" 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 Larry Grayson doppleganger Bart " Ooooh...Shut That Door" 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 #141 on: May 14, 2018, 05:35:16 AM »


Online Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #142 on: May 14, 2018, 07:35:16 AM »
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.

Online Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #143 on: May 14, 2018, 09:23:44 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.
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 »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #143 on: May 14, 2018, 09:23:44 AM »


Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #144 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? 

Online Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #145 on: May 14, 2018, 05:45:37 PM »
I suppose the irony, above irony, is that those of us that refuse to accept an unsupportable claim, are looked upon as "discussion disruptors", and are subject to ridicule attempts, as if we had made an outlandish claim, after 50 years of evident claim contradiction.

As I recently observed, my participation, that began on another forum in the then ongoing  PrayerPersonImage discussion, exceeds at least 4 years, and with consistent conclusions.

Far too often, "research researches research without study of research". And, without studying and researching the actual event, as it occurred in real time with real people involved as participants, victims, and witnesses.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2018, 02:30:31 AM by Larry Trotter »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #145 on: May 14, 2018, 05:45:37 PM »


Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #146 on: May 16, 2018, 04:38:47 AM »
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 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.

I dismiss all the solid examples I gave you, as must anyone who believes all the shots came from behind and have found no evidence that those on the steps were any better at seperating facts from what they later believed. Also, I was talking about the mentality of the investigators and not your own. You seem to believe their testimony is persausive and yet for me it proves nothing. I assumed you must ignore some witnesses, if this is true then think of it and tell me how those on the steps were any better.

Did Holland or any of the dozen or so up there with him, tell us that some of these men were still clapping and waving at the limo as it approached them, including one stood within feet of Sam himself? Of course not. Does that then mean it probably didn't happen even if we see fuzzy images where they seem to be doing exactly that?
 
If you need examples nearer to PM  there are many out there from those that believe LHO=PM, including their motivation and inspiration for looking at it so closely.
.

Online Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #147 on: May 16, 2018, 07:59:13 AM »
I dismiss all the solid examples I gave you, as must anyone who believes all the shots came from behind and have found no evidence that those on the steps were any better at seperating facts from what they later believed. Also, I was talking about the mentality of the investigators and not your own. You seem to believe their testimony is persausive and yet for me it proves nothing. I assumed you must ignore some witnesses, if this is true then think of it and tell me how those on the steps were any better.

Did Holland or any of the dozen or so up there with him, tell us that some of these men were still clapping and waving at the limo as it approached them, including one stood within feet of Sam himself? Of course not. Does that then mean it probably didn't happen even if we see fuzzy images where they seem to be doing exactly that?
 
If you need examples nearer to PM  there are many out there from those that believe LHO=PM, including their motivation and inspiration for looking at it so closely.
.
Barry, again, this thread is named " "PrayerWoman", and so named as a discussion about who is represented by the PrayerPersonImage.
This thread is not about SamHolland, or about the TripleUnderpass occupants.
The eyewitnesses/occupants of the TSBD Building Elm St entrance landing/stairs would have information about the other occupants, and SamHolland and other TU occupants would not be likely to be able to provide information about occupants of the entrance stairs/landing.
Quite simple to me. And, for what reason for me to "need examples nearer to PM"? Who are the "many out there from those that believe LHO=PM, including their motivation and inspiration for looking at it so closely"? What does that mean?
As often stated, I indicate my conclusions, and you can do the same. Just state your case. However, the actual facts may differ, so I can deal with that. But, you have not provided any said facts.
In any event Barry, I have answered your questions, so I would hope that you do not keep asking the same, but reworded, questions.


But, I do wonder, as I wander, what your reasoning is for believing the"many out there from those that believe LHO=PM",and not agreeing with the many, yes many, that cannot, and do not, believe the LHO is PrayerManTheory?
For the record, I am among the many that conclude the PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TSBD Bldg, who went to the entrance stairs/landing area to view the JFK Sr motorcade, that included FL JBK, along with TG JBC Jr and FL IBC in the limousine.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 08:23:36 AM by Larry Trotter »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #147 on: May 16, 2018, 07:59:13 AM »


Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #148 on: May 16, 2018, 04:52:24 PM »
The Prayer Man promoters keep getting away with denying the Davidson enhancement...The Davidson enhancement in itself proves Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...When it was first posted over 2 years ago every LINK DELETED: Links To websites which contain materials or links to materials which are unsuitable for viewing by minors is forbidden member who saw it admitted it looked like a woman...They then backed-off saying yes it did appear like a woman but was a freak image that appeared because of photographic glitches...Rubbish...The woman's face is a real part of the Wiegman celluloid frame and the Murphy cult has gotten away with ignoring sound scientific evidence...

Davidson is all you need and it credibly shows the face of Sarah Stanton on Prayer Man and not Lee Harvey Oswald...Stancak is wasting the JFK research community's time with his cartoons that try to force Oswald's image on to Prayer Man...The moderators are allowing Stancak to basically do what Cinque and Fetzer did... 

Credible research looks at all evidence objectively and actively seeks evidence that solves an issue one way or the other...The Prayer Man people deliberately ignore evidence and then use mob tactics to get biased moderators to censor those with the facts...

Davidson avoids answering why he helps promote a computer graphic showing Oswald while he himself publicly committed to Prayer Man being a woman...What sense does that make and why is the time of other researchers being wasted? 

By the way, like Stancak, Davidson has drawn invalid height lines across the portal face that do not conform to the Depository front wall and its perspective plane...Other researchers are uncredibly mute on this and don't call out Davidson and Stancak on this disqualifying violation of science...They respond with ignoring...   
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 04:57:47 PM by Brian Doyle »

Online Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #149 on: May 16, 2018, 09:27:45 PM »
Well Brian, sometimes I can't even spell sighyents, and of all subjects in school, undoubtedly my worst. That said, when viewing the "produced entrance scene with mannequins", I am unable to understand the placement process on some, especially those who's"images are not seen or identified as filmed". Also, the measurements do not seem to have been matched accordingly.

As someone likely wiser than I said, "mannequins do not make people, mannequins are made by people".

When, and if, the PrayerWoman facial enhancement is sufficiently shown to be anatomically authentic, I will gladly acknowledge such, apologize, and then explain my reasoning for failure to embrace said enhancement.

Although a routing disagreement, the destination is the objective, and remains the same.

 

Mobile View