Chris Davidson Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Um... Duncan, why is it that your Prayer Man face is different from Chris Davidson's Prayer Man Face? Compare yours above, with Chris's below. And, in fact, your Prayer Man face is far too big for the body. At least Chris's is about the right size. Actually it looks like your picture isn't a crop from Chris's at all. Unless you did further processing on it. What gives? Sandy, There are two different Wiegman frames involved. See bottom of post #242. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 He can't show you. He discarded all his work immediately. Life is great …you should get one. ROTFLMAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) Duplicate post Edited June 8, 2016 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) Hello Duncan, thanks for posting the link to your blog which provides answers to some of my questions, however, not to all questions. My take from your article is that the person in question was a woman 5'3'', holding a purse, wearing a long coat with large buttons. You seem to indicate that this person stood on the top platform, which is supported with a 2D drawing of the doorway showing the doorway scene from the front. However, I am still at loss what was the cause of the bright spot at the location of the right hand which is best seen in Wiegman's still - how could a purse reflect light with such intensity? The long coat: I can see the forearms of the person in question naked - this does not seem to be compatible with wearing a long coat. Your doorway drawing does not offer an accurate evaluation of the height of the person in question. First, the image is of too a small size and poor resolution. Second, it shows the doorway from a front view. In contrast, Darnell's still shows it from an angle, and the doorway is slightly tilted to the left. The relative position of the prayer person and Mr. Frazier needs to be clarified as once their locations are not perfectly aligned with the door plane (i.e., these two people would stand in different distances from the glass door), their relative heights cannot be read from a 2D picture. especially if the view is not a perfect front view. I have actually tested the 5'3'' person in my 3D model. A person of this height would be too tall (by about 2'') relative to Mr. Frazier's neck line. Please find this reconstruction on my blog: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ . I am also not sure about your suggestion of Pauline Sanders being the prayer person. This lady stood nearest to the glass door - this is not the prayer person's location. Further, there is Mrs. Sanders's FBI tetsimony dated March 19, 1964: "I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance." So, if you would agree that it is unlikely that the allgeed woman was Mrs. Sanders, who else could it be? Edited June 8, 2016 by Andrej Stancak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Well done Chris for confirming The Death Of "Prayer Man" Here She Is Nifty crop. How about showing the whole area (such as above the top line i/e)! I suppose the lack of arrows on your behalf has to be construed as progress from your side..... The head was already too large within your cropped version, but it is huge now isn't it? Prayer Man is now elephant man? Ever thought of considering the digital artefacts that being presented in these images? Of course not nor all the many generations of various formats/films/tapes involved with this, nah.... See this shows your dishonesty regarding this matter. And all previous related 'things' brought up by you, which were debunked, and then some, 6 months ago. http://www.prayer-man.com/the-death-of-prayer-woman/ At your place you have Albert Doyle who has been on a rampage with non existent evidence for almost a year, and to be honest I have no idea what grub you put in his bowl, but it seems to be doing something. To this day you nor Albert Doyle never supply one shred of supporting evidence.... I have no issue when people thinking/discussing he is holding a cam/mug or bottle it is all subjective, but what you do is blatantly dishonest. The pic above and the blog post provide plenty for everyone to consider that what you write can be considered extremely suspect. To you this may be a wind up of classic proportions, but at the same time I say this person cannot be taken serious at any time. Here is Prayer Man at its finest Yup pixelated but still plenty of features to realise this is Lee Harvey Oswald, and of course supported by a truckload of statements and witness testimony, you should start by going through all the evidence than mess about with photos as you are not up to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Well done Chris for confirming The Death Of "Prayer Man" Here She Is Um... Duncan, why is it that your Prayer Man face is different from Chris Davidson's Prayer Man Face? Compare yours above, with Chris's below. And, in fact, your Prayer Man face is far too big for the body. At least Chris's is about the right size. Actually it looks like your picture isn't a crop from Chris's at all. Unless you did further processing on it. What gives? Um...Because they are different frames. You say that as though we are supposed to know it. As I commented, the difference might have been due to additional processing beyond what Chris had done. I had no idea what you'd done, and reasonably so. In Post 280 Chris introduced the frame from which he concluded PM is a woman. It was only natural to understand that that was the frame you were referring to when you noted on your photo that it had been cropped and enlarged from Chris's frame. What gives, is that you have obviously not read and viewed the post where Chris uploaded the gif which I have taken the frame from. It's a crop from Chris's gif which I have simply enlarged and sharpened. I'm sure Chris can confirm this. What? How does that make any sense? I've read and studied carefully every one of Chris's posts in this thread. In none of them does he say that Duncan will, in the future, take a frame from this particular gif, enlarge, and crop it to show that the face is that of a woman. It is your job to specify from where you got a frame, not mine . (I normally don't make a big deal of things like this. I do this time because of your mocking attitude. You could have simply explained that your photo was from a different frame posted earlier.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Sandy, If you have a genuine interest in this topic, which I believe you do have, then it is your job, not mine, to follow each individual post. And that is precisely what I have done. If you are going to comment and be critical of an image, or crop of an image, then the viewing and self analysis of previous images uploaded by Chris would have registered with you, and told you that the crop was from one single frame of one of his uploaded animated gifs. What registered with me was Chris's frame showing the (apparent) woman. Which is what the topic of your post was. A simple look back at previous pages would also have answered your questions. And how many pages back would I have to go? Why not just ask you, which is what I did. Bart Kamp isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to reaching conclusions ( He comes from the Jim DiEugenio School of A knew B, B knew C, so C must have known A ) but even he recognised the frame. Well then, that proves it, doesn't it. One person recognizes the frame and therefore everybody surely will.... not! You should have just answered my questions, but without the attitude. It's called good manners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I am also not sure about your suggestion of Pauline Sanders being the prayer person. This lady stood nearest to the glass door - this is not the prayer person's location. Further, there is Mrs. Sanders's FBI tetsimony dated March 19, 1964: "I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance." So, if you would agree that it is unlikely that the allgeed woman was Mrs. Sanders, who else could it be? Pauline Sanders was asked where she was standing during the assassination. The images being used by everyone contributing here and elsewhere, show the entrance to the TSBD after the assassination. She could easily have moved from East to West during the short time frame. Duncan, the problem is that the prayer person in Darnell's stils is the same as the one we see in Wiegman's film. Thus, the person stood approximately on the same spot both during and after shooting. So, Mrs. Sanders could not be the prayer person - she stood at the east part of the doorway during the shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Duncan isn't very good with evidence Andrej since he has to manipulate it to put 'his way' forward. Buttons debunked Bag debunked Purse debunked Fakery exposed (not just once) It's called Slam Duncaned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I have proven that you have altered the images and l i e d your way through all those posts which you have deleted once you realised the jig was up I have proven that your buttons observation is utter toss and that they are artefacts I have proven that your bag theory is human hair I have proven that your purse theory is bunk I have proven that you mislead by cropping pictures to such an extent to pervert research. I have proven that in all the exchanges here you not once supported your deluded assertions with anything but fakery. And when asked upon you refused to deliver. Edited by Admin Now as much as I would like to waste my time in engaging with you further, there are better things to do......as this looks to become a repeat (you losing the argument and leaving with your tail between your legs) from 6 months ago and it's getting boring........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Why would Pauline Sanders move East to West when she would normally move the opposite way (if she was on the West side originally) to follow the parade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) "She fancied a bit of shade after all that sunshine, as she forgot her factor 30" Edited June 9, 2016 by Bart Kamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Edited by Admin it's just me, I do all the exposure of your untruths all by myself Departure, me? Your delusions are getting in your way sunshine..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Gentlemen, I have hidden a number of posts and edited others. Take this as a warning. The EF is not the place to hurl personal insults at fellow members. I hope it does not re-occur. But action will be more severe should member(s) foolishly allow it to re-occur. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) edit Edited June 9, 2016 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts