LR Trotter Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:Easily possible LRT. It's right there in front of you in Pollard's 6:44 post on page 13 of Duncan's Prayer Man thread.


You can see Frazier move from the middle of the portal in the 1st shot to directly behind Prayer Woman in the 2nd shot. The shape and height of his forehead is identical in both frames. It's Frazier's forehead, I assure you. He disappears from the portal in the 2nd shot. That's because he's behind Prayer Woman. This also proves the hand is glowing in sun because it PROVES Prayer Woman is forward.


I've made a major discovery.

Sorry Mr Doyle, but what I see is an image that has an appearance of shade reconstruction, and if not previously recognizable, I cannot see how changing the shading of the image has any real value. But, again I repeat my opinion that there is no PrayerMan, and indeed the image could be labeled PrayerWoman, based on the existing film, along with testimony by known area occupants at the time, as well as some situational film and/or photos of the area some minutes after the shooting of JFK and JBC. So, regarding the PrayerPerson evidence, we still tend to disagree. Don't you agree?

Mark A. O'Blazney Wrote:You dish it out, Albert, you darned well better learn how to take it like a man when you're called out.

Perhaps if you and Ralph Cinque join forces and put your photogrammetry skills together, you'll come up with something, uh, mo' better.

It was quite a sight watching the two of you have at it 'over there' last year until Ralph was banned, even after the "amnesty".

But I still say your Prayer Woman is a dude taking pictures with a camera. That is my opinion, if only from analyzing Mr. Unger's excellent images he sliced together

on this subject. Bravo, Robin.

Could "he/she" be Sarah Stanton? Perhaps. Oswald? Probably not. Could Trump be POTUS? Well…….. (Ronnie favourite word)

Scott Kaiser Wrote:

LR Trotter Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:Easily possible LRT. It's right there in front of you in Pollard's 6:44 post on page 13 of Duncan's Prayer Man thread.


You can see Frazier move from the middle of the portal in the 1st shot to directly behind Prayer Woman in the 2nd shot. The shape and height of his forehead is identical in both frames. It's Frazier's forehead, I assure you. He disappears from the portal in the 2nd shot. That's because he's behind Prayer Woman. This also proves the hand is glowing in sun because it PROVES Prayer Woman is forward.


I've made a major discovery.

Sorry Mr Doyle, but what I see is an image that has an appearance of shade reconstruction, and if not previously recognizable, I cannot see how changing the shading of the image has any real value. But, again I repeat my opinion that there is no PrayerMan, and indeed the image could be labeled PrayerWoman, based on the existing film, along with testimony by known area occupants at the time, as well as some situational film and/or photos of the area some minutes after the shooting of JFK and JBC. So, regarding the PrayerPerson evidence, we still tend to disagree. Don't you agree?

You mean does he agree to disagree?

https://youtu.be/g5j8Jioan1w

LR Trotter Wrote:

Scott Kaiser Wrote:

LR Trotter Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:Easily possible LRT. It's right there in front of you in Pollard's 6:44 post on page 13 of Duncan's Prayer Man thread.


You can see Frazier move from the middle of the portal in the 1st shot to directly behind Prayer Woman in the 2nd shot. The shape and height of his forehead is identical in both frames. It's Frazier's forehead, I assure you. He disappears from the portal in the 2nd shot. That's because he's behind Prayer Woman. This also proves the hand is glowing in sun because it PROVES Prayer Woman is forward.


I've made a major discovery.

Sorry Mr Doyle, but what I see is an image that has an appearance of shade reconstruction, and if not previously recognizable, I cannot see how changing the shading of the image has any real value. But, again I repeat my opinion that there is no PrayerMan, and indeed the image could be labeled PrayerWoman, based on the existing film, along with testimony by known area occupants at the time, as well as some situational film and/or photos of the area some minutes after the shooting of JFK and JBC. So, regarding the PrayerPerson evidence, we still tend to disagree. Don't you agree?

You mean does he agree to disagree?

https://youtu.be/g5j8Jioan1w

I do not recall posting this subject matter on this thread, and as Mr Kaiser asked a relative question, I do wonder, as I wander, if, and if so, why was this conversation inserted in this thread? As I make an effort to be polite on my posts, and respectful to others, as well as the subject matter, I request the same respect be afforded me on this public forum. And if my name is associated with a discussion, I believe I am entitled to said respect and an explanation as to why any post by me, directly or indirectly, is moved from one area to another. If Mr Kaiser's reply was for some reason unknown by me inappropriate, why not just delete it? Whether or not anyone agrees and/or disagrees with Mr Doyle's and my somewhat opposing viewpoint about the PP identity, our quoted conversation does not, and should not, in my opinion, belong here.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

LR Trotter Wrote:

Scott Kaiser Wrote:[quote=LR Trotter]

Sorry Mr Doyle, but what I see is an image that has an appearance of shade reconstruction, and if not previously recognizable, I cannot see how changing the shading of the image has any real value. But, again I repeat my opinion that there is no PrayerMan, and indeed the image could be labeled PrayerWoman, based on the existing film, along with testimony by known area occupants at the time, as well as some situational film and/or photos of the area some minutes after the shooting of JFK and JBC. So, regarding the PrayerPerson evidence, we still tend to disagree. Don't you agree?

You mean does he agree to disagree?

https://youtu.be/g5j8Jioan1w

Quote:I do not recall posting this subject matter on this thread, and as Mr Kaiser asked a relative question, I do wonder, as I wander, if, and if so, why was this conversation inserted in this thread? As I make an effort to be polite on my posts, and respectful to others, as well as the subject matter, I request the same respect be afforded me on this public forum. And if my name is associated with a discussion, I believe I am entitled to said respect and an explanation as to why any post by me, directly or indirectly, is moved from one area to another. If Mr Kaiser's reply was for some reason unknown by me inappropriate, why not just delete it? Whether or not anyone agrees and/or disagrees with Mr Doyle's and my somewhat opposing viewpoint about the PP identity, our quoted conversation does not, and should not, in my opinion, belong here.

Quote:Mr Trotter, Scott Kaiser is getting "special treatment" due to his well deserved repition for trolling. I am moving most of his posts to this thread so that if he trolls, he is trolling himself.

OTOH, due to his sources he can at times make contributions. If you want to respond to Scott, this is the thread where it will happen. Cheers.

LR Trotter Wrote:

Scott Kaiser Wrote:

LR Trotter Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:Easily possible LRT. It's right there in front of you in Pollard's 6:44 post on page 13 of Duncan's Prayer Man thread.


You can see Frazier move from the middle of the portal in the 1st shot to directly behind Prayer Woman in the 2nd shot. The shape and height of his forehead is identical in both frames. It's Frazier's forehead, I assure you. He disappears from the portal in the 2nd shot. That's because he's behind Prayer Woman. This also proves the hand is glowing in sun because it PROVES Prayer Woman is forward.


I've made a major discovery.

Sorry Mr Doyle, but what I see is an image that has an appearance of shade reconstruction, and if not previously recognizable, I cannot see how changing the shading of the image has any real value. But, again I repeat my opinion that there is no PrayerMan, and indeed the image could be labeled PrayerWoman, based on the existing film, along with testimony by known area occupants at the time, as well as some situational film and/or photos of the area some minutes after the shooting of JFK and JBC. So, regarding the PrayerPerson evidence, we still tend to disagree. Don't you agree?

You mean does he agree to disagree?

https://youtu.be/g5j8Jioan1w

I do not recall posting this subject matter on this thread, and as Mr Kaiser asked a relative question, I do wonder, as I wander, if, and if so, why was this conversation inserted in this thread? As I make an effort to be polite on my posts, and respectful to others, as well as the subject matter, I request the same respect be afforded me on this public forum. And if my name is associated with a discussion, I believe I am entitled to said respect and an explanation as to why any post by me, directly or indirectly, is moved from one area to another. If Mr Kaiser's reply was for some reason unknown by me inappropriate, why not just delete it? Whether or not anyone agrees and/or disagrees with Mr Doyle's and my somewhat opposing viewpoint about the PP identity, our quoted conversation does not, and should not, in my opinion, belong here.

Scott Kaiser Wrote:If you ask me this form and or any form needs some sense of humor or it will get boring very fast by the way I have no problem trolling myself after all, you're still going to read it. LMAO!