PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

[Alistair Briggs]

28 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

you may wish to look again on your allocation of names to individual persons in Darnell's still. Otis Williams is still there, in my view, in front of the man in a suit. That man on the top landing wearing a suit could be Shelley. The contours of Otis Wiliams are less clear but he is the white spot in front (below) and slightly to Shelley's right. We do not see his head because he is shielding his eyes with his right forearm and hand. The man in suit (B in your scheme) cannot be Williams because Williams wore a long-sleeve white shirt - please consult Altgens6.

First of all, regarding the lettering of the people A-G in the 'Altgens6/weigman frame' picture, it wasn't me that put those letters on it. Secondly, as for the identification on those in the 'Altgens6/weigman frame' picture, earlier on I asked for 'help' in identifying the marked people on it, Bart Kamp responded and that is what I have gone on with. That is the same Bart Kamp whose Prayer Man site you directed me to previously, and the same Bart Kamp who has Lovelady and Shelley both having left the steps by the time of the Darnell frame... 

... In the Darnell frame there is no "man on the top landing wearing a suit", and even if there was (which there isn't) it couldn't be Shelley because Shelley has left the steps by then! Also, when you say,

Quote

The man in suit (B in your scheme) cannot be Williams because Williams wore a long-sleeve white shirt - please consult Altgens6.

In none of the 3 images is B pointing to a man in a suit. In all 3 cases it is pointing to someone wearing 'long sleeve white shirt' (less clear in Altgens 6) and that person is Williams!

[Sandy Larsen]

 

2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Sandy:

Prayer Man did not have his hands connected in Darnell's still and therefore could not hold any object (Coke) with both hands.

I see PM's hands in Darnell staying close together, out in front of him at chest level. Like he is holding something with both hands. A camera IMO.

 

Quote

Prayer Man is lifting his right arm toward his head in Wiegman which would be consistent with an act of drinking.

And his left hand goes up as well. PM appears to be holding a camera HORIZONTALLY with both hands at chest level. He then brings it up to has face as if he wishes to take a shot. He brings his right hand up, and his left hand up a little and and to his right. This rotates the camera to its correct, vertical position.

We've been told that the view finder of that type of camera can be held up to the face like that.

 

Quote

The light reflecting object would then be the bottom of a bottle. Prayer Man could have left the bottle in the recess next to his right foot as proposed by Bart. This could occur between Wiegman's and Darnell's film.

In Darnell, I cannot see any object in any of his hands but I may be mistaken or the picture quality is just not sufficient.

Therefore, it is unlikely that Prayer Man held a camera. Where did the camera go in Darnell?

You believe nothing is in PM's hands in Darnell, and yet his hands are still up in front of him just as before. Of course he is still holding whatever he was holding before.

 

Quote

While it is possible to explain the disappearance of a bottle, it would be hard to do with a camera.

He is still holding the camera in Darnell. It's just hard to make out.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Andrej Stancak]

8 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

First of all, regarding the lettering of the people A-G in the 'Altgens6/weigman frame' picture, it wasn't me that put those letters on it. Secondly, as for the identification on those in the 'Altgens6/weigman frame' picture, earlier on I asked for 'help' in identifying the marked people on it, Bart Kamp responded and that is what I have gone on with. That is the same Bart Kamp whose Prayer Man site you directed me to previously, and the same Bart Kamp who has Lovelady and Shelley both having left the steps by the time of the Darnell frame... 

... In the Darnell frame there is no "man on the top landing wearing a suit", and even if there was (which there isn't) it couldn't be Shelley because Shelley has left the steps by then! Also, when you say,

In none of the 3 images is B pointing to a man in a suit. In all 3 cases it is pointing to someone wearing 'long sleeve white shirt' (less clear in Altgens 6) and that person is Williams!

Alistair:

I may be looking at a completely different picture else I do not understand. The picture below the GIF in your post, this is a Darnell's still. In it, you have a red line associated with letter B - that man in my view is Shelley, standing on the top landing. The same man who is seen in Altgens, he wears a suit. There is then another man below him, one white speck - that one in my view is Williams. If you would recognise the man below Shelley, you would have an arrow pointing to it, but there is no such arrow in your picture. Therefore I assumed you have missed this other man in your map.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I see PM's hands in Darnell staying close together, out in front of him at chest level. Like he is holding something with both hands. A camera IMO.

 

And his left hand goes up as well. PM appears to be holding a camera HORIZONTALLY with both hands at chest level. He then brings it up to has face as if he wishes to take a shot. He brings his right hand up, and his left hand up a little and and to his right. This rotates the camera to its correct, vertical position.

We've been told that the view finder of that type of camera can be held up to the face like that.

 

You believe nothing is in PM's hands in Darnell, and yet his hands are still up in front of him just as before. Of course he is still holding whatever he was holding before.

 

He is still holding the camera in Darnell. It's just hard to make out.

Sandy:

there is nothing which can create any doubt in your mind, so I leave you with your camera.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 minute ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Sandy:

there is nothing which can create any doubt in your mind, so I leave you with your camera.

Andrej:

There is nothing which can create any doubt in your mind, so I leave you with your coke.

[Alistair Briggs]

2 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Alistair:

I may be looking at a completely different picture else I do not understand. The picture below the GIF in your post, this is a Darnell's still. In it, you have a red line associated with letter B - that man in my view is Shelley, standing on the top landing. The same man who is seen in Altgens. he wears a suit. There is then another man below him, one white speck - that one in my view is Williams.

Happy to work through this with you.

If I'm reading you correctly you are saying that in the Darnell frame that the red line associated with the letter B is Shelley standing on the top steps wearing a suit...

This is the Darnell frame:

The person associated with B there does not appear to be wearing a suit, and it can't be Shelley anyway because Shelley has left the steps by this time.

[Alistair Briggs]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

PM might be a woman. PM might not be an employee working in the TSBD building. PM might be a CIA agent. PM might be one of the conspirators. PM might be my uncle. As they say, anything is possible.

But it all comes down to statistics. Odds are high PM is a man who works in the TSBD building. Odds are low that he's a CIA agent or a conspirator. I'd bet the farm he's not my uncle.

So while it is true that PM might be a woman, beginning with the assumption that he is what he looks like -- a man -- is more likely to lead to a correct identification. (BTW, I'm confident that a good majority of people would say PM looks like a man.)

Of course, there is nothing wrong if someone wants to follow the Oswald-is-a-woman hypothesis.

I will refer back to a comment I made previous on this thread. And I will reiterate something I have repeated often - the 'odds are high' that PM is someone who works in the TSBD. And I will reiterate something I have said on a few ocassions - PM looks like it could be a man (with the caveat that the image quality is not the best to make an identification)...

... also, the frames that we are looking at have been 'lightened' and who knows what else has been done to them (innocently, of course. ) to bring out as much 'detail' as possible.

Anyway, yeah, on face value (pardon the pun), PM looks like a man...

... even still, it remains that there are 2 females who stood on the steps, corroborated by other people on the steps, whose locations have yet to be identified.

*

Ron asked,

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Have you ever known a woman who looks like a man? I have.

Sandy replied,

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's all about statistics, Ron. What percentage of women in 1963 looked like men? Very few. Most women in that era had the customary long hair.

I agree with Sandy; at that time a very small percentage of women would 'look like men' and that most women in that era had the 'customary' long hair.

From looking at many of the photographs from around Dealey Plaza that day, however, there can be seen quite a few women wearing head scarfs. Considering the position of PM, and considering the 'lightening' that has been done to the Darnell frames, and considering the 'quality' of them in the first place, there remains the possibility, (however small a possibility), that PM could be a woman who is wearing a headscarf which would 'hide' the 'customary' long hair...

...but...

Anyway, yeah, on face value (pardon the pun), PM looks like a man...

... even still, it remains that there are 2 females who stood on the steps, corroborated by other people on the steps, whose locations have yet to be identified.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

....PM could be a woman who is wearing a headscarf which would 'hide' the 'customary' long hair...

Good point. I'll have to take another look at the films.

[Andrej Stancak]

36 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Andrej:

There is nothing which can create any doubt in your mind, so I leave you with your coke.

Sorry, Sandy, but there is a difference between our standpoints, they are not comparable. It is not whether Prayer Man held a Coke or a camera - it ts the difference between holding nothing and a camera. My view that Prayer Man does not hold anything in his hands during Darnell's film and I therefore am not obliged to e.g., draw contours around the alleged object. Your position, however, prompts you to somehow demonstrate that there was a solid object resembling a camera in Prayer Man's hands in Darnell's still.

I am very sorry: I cannot see any such object in Prayer Man's hands, however, am keen to look at the contours of anything which you would draw.

[Alistair Briggs]

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I haven't really thought about his or her height. I think it could be a woman because it looks like she's wearing a dress. Or course it could be a man with a loose work shirt (and matching pants) too. IMO it's either Stanton or Oswald. As with so much else in this case, there's no way to reach a conclusion.

 

^ QFT

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Further to the recent discussion, it may be that Lovelady is the man at a spot previously occupied by Carl Jones. It would make sense to have both Lovelady and Shelley on the steps in Darnell as if Lovelady is still there how could Shelley leave sooner if he stood in the back of the doorway. Both men could leave the doorway in the next few seconds, still in the range of 15-20 seconds.

I'm not against the idea of Lovelady being in that position in the Darnell frame, and I'm not against the idea of Shelley still being there (although someone needs to point out where Shelley is in the Darnell frame), however, imo both Lovelady and Shelley have left by the time of that Darnell frame, and are the two seen 'walking' away in the Darnell/Couch sync, and I know that Bart Kamp thinks the same (it's on his website here. ) and I accept that as being the case...

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Ron:

in a way, you may be right that there is no way to reach a conclusion (Stanton vs. Oswald). The effort should be to find out any photograph of Sarah Stanton. Roy Lewis and Beull Wesley Frazier are alive - they could say how tall Sarah Stanton was.

While it is possible to view everything as being ambiguous, there are details which in my view comulatively tilt the weights towards Oswald. She was an office lady - would she wear a shirt with sleeves rolled up to the elbows?  Would she drink from a bottle in public? How likely would be that Stanton's hairline matched a male (Oswald's) hairline. 

In terms of ambiguity, and considering the 'quality' of the clips/frames in question (and in particular the 'lightening' that has been done to the Darnell frame'), how is it known that PM is wearing a shirt with sleeves rolled up to the elbows? How is it known that it is a 'bottle'? How is it known that the 'hairline' that's seen is how it seems?

What if it wasn't a shirt with sleeves rolled up and it was a dress with short sleeves? What if the 'hairline' was caused by the wearing of a headscarf? Just a thought.

Here is a frame from Weigman in which some of the woman have 'short sleeves' and some are wearing 'headscarfs'.

I'm not saying that proves anything of course...

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

10 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

....PM could be a woman who is wearing a headscarf which would 'hide' the 'customary' long hair...

Good point. I'll have to take another look at the films.

It really was a good point. It seemed so to me, anyway. But I quickly ruled it out to my satisfaction.

If PM is a woman wearing a headscarf, she wears her scarf very tight. And she has no bangs... she pulls her hair back tightly. Oddly, she doesn't bother to hide her receding hairline with the scarf. What woman wouldn't do that?

Conclusion: If PM is a woman, she is pulling her hair back very tightly and is not wearing a scarf. Not exactly a 1960s style.

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

My view that Prayer Man does not hold anything in his hands during Darnell's film and I therefore am not obliged to e.g., draw contours around the alleged object.

But you ARE obliged to explain why PM keeps his hands up like that when, according to you, he isn't holding anything!

[Alistair Briggs]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It really was a good point. It seemed so to me, anyway. But I quickly ruled it out to my satisfaction.

If PM is a woman wearing a headscarf, she wears her scarf very tight. And she has no bangs... she pulls her hair back tightly. Oddly, she doesn't bother to hide her receding hairline with the scarf. What woman wouldn't do that?

Conclusion: If PM is a woman, she is pulling her hair back very tightly and is not wearing a scarf. Not exactly a 1960s style.

Fair points Sandy fair points...

Fundamentally it comes down to the 'quality' of the image, as I said previously " the frames that we are looking at have been 'lightened' and who knows what else has been done to them (innocently, of course. ) to bring out as much 'detail' as possible"  - thus it's difficult to draw an accurate conclusion. Nowt wrong with trying though.

Setting aside the look of PM though, it still remains that there are 2 females who stood on the steps, corroborated by other people on the steps, whose locations have yet to be identified.

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Setting aside the look of PM though, it still remains that there are 2 females who stood on the steps, corroborated by other people on the steps, whose locations have yet to be identified.

Don't forget, they could have changed positions. They could even have been standing out on he road with the others when the spectators were filmed.

Here's a case in point: I've been reading a lot of testimony regarding Shelley and Lovelady on the steps. So far I've seen testimony that Lovelady was on the landing, or some steps down. I've seen testimony that Shelley and Lovelady were on the steps, and at the bottom of the steps. And other testimony that they and others left the steps and crossed the extension t get a better look.

[Alistair Briggs]

52 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Don't forget, they could have changed positions.

Of course, between the time of the shots and the Darnell clip (approx. 30 seconds) they could have changed positions. Somewhat besides the point though...

52 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

They could even have been standing out on he road with the others when the spectators were filmed.

Not at the time of the shots though... both Sanders and Stanton put themselves on the steps at the time of the shots!

Sanders said she was on the top step at the time beside Stanton, and Stanton says she was with Sanders, Williams, Shelley and Lovelady.

*At the time of the shots (as per the Altgens6/Weigman frame) we can see Williams, Shelley and Lovelady. What reason is there that we can't see Sanders or Stanton there? Perhaps, because they were standing out of sight in Altgens6 and standing in the 'darkened' area of Wiegman frame.

Here is the list of all the people that said they were on the steps at the time of the shots - Davis, McCully, Dean, Reese, Sanders, Stanton, Jones, Frazier, Lovelady, Molina, Shelley, Williams.

The Altgens6 and Wiegman frame are close enough to each other and close enough in time to the shots to say that the following have been identified as being visible on the steps at the time of the shots - Davis, McCully, Dean, Reese, Jones, Lovelady, Molina, Shelley, Williams.

At the time of the shots then Sanders, Stanton and Frazier are all unseen. Why are they all unseen? They must be standing in the 'darkened' corner...

*By the time of the Darnell frame (approx. 30 seconds later) Davis, McCully, Dean, Reese, Molina, Williams can all still be seen in relatively the same position. It is said that Lovelady and Shelley by this time have left (I know your objections on that point ) and Jones has left (seen running across the road to the 'traffic lights pole'). So that's all of the ones seen at the time of the shots accounted for. In the Darnell frame Frazier is now seen (presumably after having moved out of the 'shadows'.

That just leaves Sanders and Stanton then.

At the time of the shots neither are visible, and by the time of the Darnell clip neither are visible. Both were on the steps at the time of the shots - that's the important bit though - both were on the steps at the time of the shots.

Sanders did say that she stayed on the steps a 'moment' and then went to the island for a 'moment' before returning - could her leaving have happened within the 30 seconds after the shots before Darnell caught the steps? Possibly. But it could have been after also! Or she could be in the process of leaving. It is unknown.

Stanton on the other hand...

 

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Alistair Briggs