Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Joe Simmons, Thomas Graves and 53 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 200314 times)

Offline Patrick Jackson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #240 on: June 09, 2018, 11:52:40 AM »
Prayer Person could not be Sarah Stanton since she had a distinctive black hat.
Prayer Person was Pauline Sanders most likely. She was mature and old enough to understand not to force that LHO was on front steps and she never testified in front of Warren Commission. I am also researching Doris Burns.

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #241 on: June 09, 2018, 12:24:24 PM »
Sarah Stanton's daughter just told me that Sarah told her that she ran in to Lee Harvey Oswald in a break room just prior to going out to the steps... The grand daughter Wanda said: "people were going out to watch and he (Oswald) was waiting at the stairs with a soda...she asked are you going to lunch and he answered just a soda...she said he was a very quiet man that he didnt talk to anyone...she left to go outside and he went “upstairs”? thats it. hope this helps." Since it is very unlikely that 2nd floor office worker Sarah Stanton saw Oswald in the worker's 1st floor domino room away from the stairs in the Northeast corner of the Depository that means we have a second witness beside Carolyn Arnold who saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room with a Coke just prior to going out to watch the motorcade...

Not even secondhand but coming through you that's three people we have to trust, it doesn't work for me but did you at least get it "on tape"?

I'd ask for more photos not hearsay and also whether her son ever visited his mother for lunch perhaps even on that day because of the parade(PM looks more like him that her in that image she shared with you and he's in her position but why would you do that when you already know it's her?), is that her uncle then, is he still around, can you contact him, he would be the one to ask that to but subtle like.
Also I admire the way you reach out(and haven't I remained respectful toward you? That's no front) but I have to wonder if your questions might be influencing these people.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #241 on: June 09, 2018, 12:24:24 PM »


Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #242 on: June 09, 2018, 12:45:04 PM »
Prayer Person could not be Sarah Stanton since she had a distinctive black hat.
Prayer Person was Pauline Sanders most likely. She was mature and old enough to understand not to force that LHO was on front steps and she never testified in front of Warren Commission. I am also researching Doris Burns.

Hi Patrick.
The odd hat gal next to Maddie Resse has been named elsewhere as Ruth Dean.

But whether this comes from document research or photographic I have no idea but I suspect the former.
Where did you learn it was Stanton? Perhaps the two sources are actually the same after a change of heart.

Online Michael Walton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #243 on: June 09, 2018, 02:38:17 PM »
Hi Michael,
you made a rather sensible statement on the EF, rather than getting involved in the speculation you wrote;
"Does all this matter? The guy[PM] could be LHO but we'll never know until a better copy of the film is found".

Now has your opinion really changed or are you just bored of the endless and mostly fruitless talk?
I agree with what you wrote there, even though the odds are extreemly thin for it but that's just based on all the other observations in the photographic evidence that have amounted to nought(you know, gunmen and shadowy figures who turn out to be innocents or figments of imagination, discrepancies in the films etc) and not where LHO "has to be".
Someone else says "it's not just about the images" but I dissagree, either it's him or it's not and it looks enough like him to maintain my interest for now.
When there's true "reliable evidence" against it, like proving he's a she or that it's stood on the landing then I'll move on but there's more here that interests me than just the Oswald angle, some people's idea of what real evidence is an endless source of wonder and interesting speculation is what we're all here for.

Barry, thanks for your reply.  Sometimes in my zeal to reveal what really happen that day, I *want* to believe anything to prove the conspiracy.  Then I have to calm down and take a step back.  Yes, I used to believe it was Oswald. But now I don't think it is and on EF I also said this:

"And no one seems to ask themselves the significant question because if they do, it will put doubt in their mind.  That question is:
If the plan was to murder Kennedy and set up Oswald to be the patsy, WHY would they allow their patsy to be out there during  these critical moments, risking the whole conspiracy? The planners knew that there was going to be cameras outside during the parade.  They most certainly wouldn't want the person they had set up to take the blame for the murder to be anywhere NEAR these cameras.
Of course, Andrej, Bart and John will totally ignore this because you DO have to take this into consideration, but instead they prefer to just ignore it and go on with their conspiracy belief that it's Oswald up there seconds after the shooting."

Doyle, of course, calls this "blather" but it's really not. So what does that tell you? It tells me that Doyle, like a rabid dog with teeth clenched deeply into someone's leg, cannot think of totally differing ideas about this. It's all Sarah Stanton, all the time.  So yes, regarding that, it's boring to keep reading about it when there are other more important things about this case to focus on.  The Dave Lifton xxxxxxxx is one of them.

And yes, I also said what you quoted me on about we'll never know until some pristine frame of that footage comes along and proves it's him or not. Believe me I want it to be him but as I explained above, if all that has been written about regarding the conspiracy is true (the patsy set up) I just cannot imagine them dropping the ball on that and not prepping him to stay inside until the deed was done.

Put another way, Doyle is just pissed because he got banned from EF.  That's all it boils down to.  I've been banned too but I've moved on, posting here and there on this forum.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #243 on: June 09, 2018, 02:38:17 PM »


Offline Patrick Jackson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #244 on: June 09, 2018, 02:56:30 PM »
Hi Patrick.
The odd hat gal next to Maddie Resse has been named elsewhere as Ruth Dean.

But whether this comes from document research or photographic I have no idea but I suspect the former.
Where did you learn it was Stanton? Perhaps the two sources are actually the same after a change of heart.

Uh, it is a good question about Sarah Stanton. Maybe I am wrong but I think somebody stated she was wearing that black hat.

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #245 on: June 09, 2018, 06:13:26 PM »
Doyle, of course, calls this "blather" but it's really not. So what does that tell you? It tells me that Doyle, like a rabid dog with teeth clenched deeply into someone's leg, cannot think of totally differing ideas about this. It's all Sarah Stanton, all the time.  So yes, regarding that, it's boring to keep reading about it when there are other more important things about this case to focus on.  The Dave Lifton bullshit is one of them.

And yes, I also said what you quoted me on about we'll never know until some pristine frame of that footage comes along and proves it's him or not. Believe me I want it to be him but as I explained above, if all that has been written about regarding the conspiracy is true (the patsy set up) I just cannot imagine them dropping the ball on that and not prepping him to stay inside until the deed was done.

Put another way, Doyle is just xxxxxx because he got banned from EF.  That's all it boils down to.  I've been banned too but I've moved on, posting here and there on this forum.


As I already explained, you yourself backed my discovery of the 3 inch too long leg on Stancak's Prayer Man...That discovery is better proof than your entry that the plotters would not have allowed Oswald to wander - though I absolutely agree that to any honest person with common sense who understands the complex multi-month set-up of Oswald that the idea that he would be allowed to blow the whole set up by being seen on the front steps landing is silly and only shows the value of the people who are making it as far as credibility...These people got drawn in to the Prayer Man delusion and allowed themselves to be brainwashed by it and now they are practicing childish silly spite in revenge which only shows their juvenile nature and lack of research credibility...It shows what they are truly here for and it isn't honest objective analysis...It is quite foolish to attack me because it only translates in to letting Stancak off the hook...However, in reading your personal attack above Michael, it seems to me you are saying you agree Prayer Man is Stanton because of my evidence...Thank you for that...It is more than the Prayer Man mob has done in their persecution...Credible researchers don't gang-up and persecute because someone proved them wrong...

To say we need better footage is just to give the whole game away and side with the Prayer Man people foolishly...It shows a lack of skill...The fat forearm and waist on Prayer Man when compared to Stanton forensically match and therefore prove Prayer Man is Stanton...Michael has nerve because he's talking to the internet's best authority on the Prayer Man issue...He, like every other denier of this correct evidence, ignores the fact that I have proven the timing of Gloria Calvery running to the steps proves that Frazier is talking to Sarah at the moment of the Darnell image...

Yes, I'm xxxxxx about being banned from Deep Politics and the Education Forum...I'm xxxxxx because they were allowed to break their own rules and ignore correct evidence...On the EF you have one moderator saying they are sensitive about quality of content but then missing egregious scientific errors by Stancak...The second moderator there said accuracy of evidence doesn't matter the only thing that matters is how people treat each other...Apparently they don't consider ganging-up on an innocent member and violating their own rules as mistreating??? It is pretty clear to people not under the spell of the Murphy gang that the moderation at those sites banned me in order to gain favor with their favored members...If you are smart you'll realize Larsen stopped posting after I proved his location of Calvery proved Prayer Man was Stanton...It is not me who is obsessed...All I am guilty of is posting the correct evidence against some very dirty and dishonest people who are willing to destroy the credibility of the entire community in order to preserve their egos...Jim DiEugenio is the ring leader of that and has some serious justice headed his way...I got banned because I disproved a 95% majority on Prayer Man...People who ban because you refute them are losers...Lauren Johnson is a teller of non truths...He said I wasn't being banned because of my Prayer Man "beliefs"...He's a teller of non truths...Any look at the record at Deep Politics will show that every time I cited the site rules he was violating as moderator he deleted it and locked the thread...The private and cowardly moderator board said I was only citing those rules in order to attack Lauren (in other words they are allowed to violate the rules and the rules don't apply to them)...The same site rules don't allow them to do that...Lauren is an unintelligent thug and simple, honorless primitive who Magda was dumb enough to allow to be moderator...But of course Magda sided with the Murphy theorists and never came back to account for it even though her rules require her to and specifically say ALL members, including administration, must heel to those rules...When you cite that the xxxxxx moderator L Johnson deletes the citation and post...Only losers stoop to that level in order to avoid admitting the truth...The internet has allowed egos to syndicate at the expense of rigor and credible research...

Michael doesn't offer much so he finds it easier to walk away from...I've offered issue-ending evidence that is being ignored and held in contempt by liars who have hijacked the community...A little bit of a different deal...

 
   
« Last Edit: June 09, 2018, 07:03:10 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #245 on: June 09, 2018, 06:13:26 PM »


Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #246 on: June 09, 2018, 06:17:16 PM »
Hi Michael,
you made a rather sensible statement on the EF, rather than getting involved in the speculation you wrote;
"Does all this matter? The guy[PM] could be LHO but we'll never know until a better copy of the film is found".

Now has your opinion really changed or are you just bored of the endless and mostly fruitless talk?
I agree with what you wrote there, even though the odds are extreemly thin for it but that's just based on all the other observations in the photographic evidence that have amounted to nought(you know, gunmen and shadowy figures who turn out to be innocents or figments of imagination, discrepancies in the films etc) and not where LHO "has to be".
Someone else says "it's not just about the images" but I dissagree, either it's him or it's not and it looks enough like him to maintain my interest for now.

When there's true "reliable evidence" against it, like proving he's a she or that it's stood on the landing then I'll move on but there's more here that interests me than just the Oswald angle, some people's idea of what real evidence is an endless source of wonder and interesting speculation is what we're all here for.

I have to wonder, as I wander, where is any reliable provable evidence for a conclusion that the PrayerPersonImage represents LeeHarveyOswald?

As a courtesy, reliable provable evidence has been acquired, and presented, for a conclusion that the PrayerPersonImage actually represents a female, then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository Building. And, said evidence therefor forces a conclusion that eliminates any male, especially LeeHarveyOswald, from being represented by the PrayerPersonImage.

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #247 on: June 09, 2018, 06:30:40 PM »
Thanks Larry:

There's a serious credibility problem with the JFK research community...Yesterday I posted never before seen evidence of a second witness to Oswald being by the 2nd floor lunch room and it was literally ignored just like the never before seen photo of Stanton...You now have a vindictive community that ignores evidence that would be trumpeted if anyone else posted it because of petty personal, egotistical spite...Even worse because you disproved them on Murphy and they are doing childish revenge and making it personal...John Kennedy would be ashamed that these (explicative) would be representing him...The head dummy is Jim DiEugenio who operates by using idiots to destroy anyone who questions his bogus claims...

In the interim I realized that Stanton must have seen Oswald with the soda by the 2nd floor lunch room vestibule...Why?...Because she asked Oswald if he was going to eat lunch...It makes sense to me that 2nd floor office worker Stanton saw Oswald by the vestibule "by the stairs" as she put it...She asked Oswald if he was going to eat lunch because he was standing on the 2nd floor staircase landing by the lunch room door...Otherwise why would she be spurred to ask if Oswald was going to eat lunch simply because she saw Oswald with a Coke?

This is corroboration of Carolyn Arnold against whom the quack researcher Bart Larry Grayson doppleganger Bart " Ooooh...Shut That Door" Kamp took the side of the Warren Commission and FBI and backed up their alteration of her statement...And the rest of the community stood back and let him...I was banned from Deep Politics when I confronted Lauren that he had committed a serious violation of his own site rules by allowing Jim DiEugenio to back this egregious endorsement of FBI deceit...Lauren never answered that...I was then banned with Lauren saying it wasn't because of this but was for "repeated behavior"... Ah huh...

Debra Conway gave my discovery a thumbs up...I called Robert Groden and he told me "You've really got something there"...Lauren Johnson: "It's your own fault"...Apparently there is no point at which DiEugenio gets embarrassed...His ego is so big that it has created a dark shadow on the truth across the entire community...

   

 
« Last Edit: June 09, 2018, 06:57:29 PM by Brian Doyle »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #247 on: June 09, 2018, 06:30:40 PM »


Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #248 on: June 09, 2018, 09:11:20 PM »
Prayer Person could not be Sarah Stanton since she had a distinctive black hat.
Prayer Person was Pauline Sanders most likely. She was mature and old enough to understand not to force that LHO was on front steps and she never testified in front of Warren Commission. I am also researching Doris Burns.


I am confident that the LadyImage dressed in black and wearing a black hat does NOT represent Ms SarahDeanStanton.

I do believe that Ms PaulineEllenRebmanSanders provided a statement/testimony to the FederalBureau of Investigation regarding her experiences of 11/22/'63, as pertaining to the JFK Sr Assassination and JBC Jr CriticalWounding.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
Prayer Woman
« Reply #249 on: June 09, 2018, 09:49:53 PM »
It is amazing that what are otherwise the best known CTers are siding with what should be obvious as an uncredible source...The LINK DELETED: Links To websites which contain materials or links to materials which are unsuitable for viewing by minors is forbidden group should be obvious for what it is, yet you have some of the best names in research siding with them and more importantly ignoring my good evidence...These people are so desperate to make it personal in order to avoid admitting they were wrong that they ignore a breakthrough new photo of Stanton...

But what is really bizarre is showing serious new evidence on a historical level of Stanton bearing witness to Oswald being on the landing by the 2nd floor lunch room with a soda and it gets ignored...That's a crime against research that the offenders should be made to answer for...It just shows the ridiculous level the Prayer Man/DiEugenio cult has led the community downward into and what they are willing to stoop to...

I called Robert Groden yesterday and he told me "You really got something there"...
« Last Edit: June 09, 2018, 10:01:14 PM by Brian Doyle »

 

Mobile View