"My New Thread"

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

  ...

 

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

  ....

You keep mentioning Sarah Stanton.  I don't know anything about Sarah Stanton.  Can you fill me in why she is important?

 

Joe,

Have you tried typing the word s-t-a-n-t-o-n into the little search box thingy in the upper right-hand corner of the main page???

 

In a nutshell, Debra Conway,  ex-EF member Brian Doyle, and I (and a few others who are brave enough to speak out) believe that "Prayer Man" is TSBD employee Sarah Stanton, whereas Bart Kamp, the (self?) exiled Greg Parker, Andrej, and oodles and gobs of others who really, really, really want photographic proof that Oswald was innocent, believe that Sean Murphy's "Prayer Man" is a 5' 9" man.  (Oswald was 5' 9.5").

 

In his very creative representation of a Darnell frame, below, Andrej has placed a shortish woman behind "Bill Shelley" (the man wearing the suit), and has labeled her "Sarah Stanton".  (You can see a teensy-weensy bit of her head sticking up over "Shelly's" right shoulder.)  Andrej's only "reasons" for doing this are: 1) Another TSBD employee, Sandra Styles Pauline Sanders (the woman wearing the purple dress in the graphic) told the FBI that her colleague Stanton was standing roughly where Andrej has "Stanton" standing behind Shelly, but the problem is that Style was only talking about their relative positions (i.e., Stanton's and Styles' positions) several minutes before the motorcade passed by, and she makes no mention of where either of them were standing during the shooting or immediately thereafter.  So, obviously, Stanton had plenty of time to kinda wander away from her colleague and assume the position of the infamous figure you and I know as "Prayer Man" before even Wiegman had started filming (some 30 seconds before Couch and Darnell started filming).

And oh, yeah:  2) Andrej thinks he's detected a blob of protoplasm "stuck" to Lovelady's left cheek in Altgen's 6  and that said blob is a piece of Stanton that was tall enough to somehow crane itself forward behind Lovelady's head and the back side of Shelley's head, maybe to get a better view? 

 

Joe, are you aware that in a 2013 videotaped interview, Buell Wesley Frazier said that when "a crying girl" (undoubtedly Gloria Calvery, visible near the bottom step with the back side of her black blouse and black headscarf to the camera in the Darnell clip) "came by the steps" and announced that "JFK had been shot," he (Frazier) turned "to" or "towards" (not "around to") a "Sarah," and asked her if she'd heard the crying girl the way he'd heard her?

 

Note:  The direction that "Prayer Man" is facing changes about 70 degrees between Wiegman and Darnell.  I don't think Andrej has accurately portrayed the magnitude of that miraculous one-legged "pivot" in the above graphic. Also, Andrej has both of "Prayer Man's hands in the sunlight, whereas in reality, only "his" right hand was in the sunlight in Darnell.

 

--  T.G.

EDIT:  Andrej, how tall, exactly, is your "Sarah Stanton" in the above graphic?
Thanks.

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Andrej Stancak]

John:

please check my January 31 post at https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/2018/01/ . This is certainly a more accurate account of reasons why Prayer Man could not be Sarah Stanton. For instance, the short lady in purple dress was most likely Pauline Sanders, not Sandra Styles as Thomas proposes. Of course, the whole height and location analysis refutes Sarah Stanton as Prayer Man as well because she would have to be 5'9'' and that she was not. Prayer Man did not look at Mr. Frazier in Darnell, and therefore there is not even a hint that Prayer Man was talking to Mr. Frazier. However, this does not disturb Thomas at all. His beliefs are above any analysis, at least in his own mind. Mr. Frazier's statement that he had turned to "Sarah" after Gloria Calvary came to announce the killing could have occurred just 1 second (or more seconds) before or 1 second (or more) after the 2.7-second snippet of Darnell's film in which Prayer Man could be seen. There is no logic and no evidence in what Thomas argues, and so he just bumps my work and phrases it at best in an ironic but usually in a worse than ironic way.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Andrej Stancak

[Thomas Graves]

6 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

John:

please check my January 31 post at https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/2018/01/ . This is certainly a more accurate account of reasons why Prayer Man could not be Sarah Stanton. For instance, the short in purple dress was most likely Pauline Sanders, not Sandra Styles as Thomas proposes. 

 

Andrej,

 

I'd already corrected my horrendous mistake before you posted this, and even went back once again to ask you a question at the very bottom of my edited again-and-again post.

Have you seen it yet?  Hint:  It's in bold red text.

 

--  T.G.

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Andrej Stancak]

7 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Have you seen it yet?  Hint:  It's in bold red text.

Go and read: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/2018/01/

[Thomas Graves]

1 minute ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Go and read: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/2018/01/

 

Andrej,

 

In the interest of good-natured "research" and "collaboration," can't you just tell me?

Don't remember?

 

--  T.G.

[Andrej Stancak]

2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

In the interest of good-natured "research" and "collaboration,

Sorry, this is not how you present yourself on this forum.

[Thomas Graves]

10 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Sorry, this is not how you present yourself on this forum.

 

Andrej,

To je skoda.  (Czech for "It's a pity.")

Regardless, have you seen Chris Davidson's enhancement work on "Prayer Man's" face as it appears in Wiegman?

--  T.G.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Andrej Stancak]

4 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Regardless, have you seen Chris Davidson's enhancement work on "Prayer Man's" face as it appears in Wiegman?

This has been discussed at length in 2016 in a large Prayer Person thread which has been moved to JFK Research folder. You will find there not only my views but also views of other researchers on this problem. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Andrej Stancak

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

This has been discussed at length in 2016 in a large Prayer Person thread which has been moved to JFK Research folder. You will find there not only my views but also views of other researchers on this problem. 

 

Andrej,

Are you aware that Chris Davidson recently publicly stated (on Greg Burnham's website, iirc) that he thinks "Prayer Man" is a woman?

--  T.G.

Edit:  Yep, here it is.  Post # 12 on the "Gloria Calvery's True Location" thread on Greg Burnham's website.  (I noticed that in post #13, Burnham himself wrote, "I tend to agree."

 

Debate to your hearts content.

I could care less who it is.

Man, Woman, Lion, Tiger, Bear ?

My original thought was the Wiegman enhanced frame shows a woman.

I have not changed my mind.

This one just reconfirms it for me.

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Andrej Stancak]

Chris is a well-respected researcher in high esteem on this forum, and I am privileged to receive his feedback and help on the issue of Oswald's body proportions. Chris certainly had his reasons to express his view on the identity of Prayer Man which I fully respect. Quite many people think that Prayer Man was actually a woman, I have no problem with that, however, I would like to complete my long-term 3D reconstruction project which may shed some light on this issue. While it is easy to write a short sentence, a recycled question, or just to bump some previously posted picture, it is more difficult to follow a certain thread for a long time, to invest time, effort and funds just to push the knowledge a bit further. I have chosen the latter path. 

[Thomas Graves]

5 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris is a well-respected researcher in high esteem on this forum, and I am privileged to receive his feedback and help on the issue of Oswald's body proportions. Chris certainly had his reasons to express his view on the identity of Prayer Man which I fully respect. Quite many people think that Prayer Man was actually a woman, I have no problem with that, however, I would like to complete my long-term 3D reconstruction project which may shed some light on this issue. While it is easy to write a short sentence, a recycled question, or just to bump some previously posted picture, it is more difficult to follow a certain thread for a long time, to invest time, effort and funds just to push the knowledge a bit further. I have chosen the latter path. 

 

I sympathize with you, Andrej.

After all. pounding a square peg into a round hole is very hard work, indeed.

 

--  T.G.  

 

[Tom Hume]

Many of us are following closely and appreciating the path you have chosen, Andrej.

[Thomas Graves]

43 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

Many of us are following closely and appreciating the path you have chosen, Andrej.

 

Yes, Andrej, hopefully you'll soon be able to give us absolute 3-D modelling proof that 5' 9.5" Lee Harvey Oswald was fully capable of being an

abnormally formed (one leg 3" or so longer than the other; sway-backed), purse-carrying, highly athletic (70-degree pivot on one leg!), wide-in-the-

hips, female-faced, 5' 9" "Prayer Man" so that we'll finally know in our heart of heats that he was ... gasp ...

 

INNOCENT ALL ALONG.

 

--  T.G.

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Clark]

46 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris is a well-respected researcher in high esteem on this forum, and I am privileged to receive his feedback and help on the issue of Oswald's body proportions. Chris certainly had his reasons to express his view on the identity of Prayer Man which I fully respect. Quite many people think that Prayer Man was actually a woman, I have no problem with that, however, I would like to complete my long-term 3D reconstruction project which may shed some light on this issue. While it is easy to write a short sentence, a recycled question, or just to bump some previously posted picture, it is more difficult to follow a certain thread for a long time, to invest time, effort and funds just to push the knowledge a bit further. I have chosen the latter path. 

 

36 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

Many of us are following closely and appreciating the path you have chosen, Andrej.

 

Yes, Andrej, thanks for your class and integrity in presenting your material. I have seen Tommy and Doyle go at it on Doyle's facebook thread. And  they did go at it, with both of them repudiating each other in a very nasty diatribe. Unfortunately, Every response to this thread gives a member here an excuse to keep going with his creepy, cryptic, obtuse, unreadable, ugly and juvenile word-craft. If this thread were allowed  to go unrespoded-to, we would only have to be exposed to that once a day, given forum rules.

[Thomas Graves]

4 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

 

 

Yes, Andrej, thanks for your class and integrity in presenting your material. I have seen Tommy and Doyle go at it on Doyle's facebook thread. And  they did go at it, with both of them repudiating each other in a very nasty diatribe. Unfortunately, Every response to this thread gives a member here an excuse to keep going with his creepy, cryptic, obtuse, unreadable, ugly and juvenile word-craft. If this thread were allowed  to go unrespoded-to, we would only have to be exposed to that once a day, given forum rules.

 

Know what's really creepy, Michael?

 

 

 

 

Aww ... never mind.  Don't wanna get "moderated," again.

 

--  T.G.
 

P.S.  Counted my number of "edits" recently?

 

PPS   "Obtuse," huh.  Did you think of that big word all by your widdle self, or did someone help you with it?

 

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Thomas Graves