+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Challenge (/thread-14618.html)
Challenge - LR Trotter - 05-04-2016
Alan Ford Wrote:LR Trotter Wrote:Alan Ford Wrote:LR Trotter Wrote:The attached link contains the image of a lady on the TSBD steps that represents someone that resembles, at least to me, the Darnell pictured image referred to as PrayerPerson by me, but PrayerMan and/or PrayerWoman by others. However, I have not seen any ample indication of the identity of the person represented by the image. But, since I have also not seen ample evidence identifying any other image representing Ms Sarah Stanton, who according to testimony, was among the occupants of the TSBD doorway area at the time of the JFK assassination, I have to consider SS as a possibilty. That said, the linked photograph appears to be some minutes after the 12:30pm CST, 11/22/63 fatal shooting of JFK, and the serious wounding of JBC. In any event, as SS was among the occupants of the TSBD doorway small area at the time of the assassination, an image representing her should be among some of the films/photos. As I now understand it, the top step/landing area from the top step to the doorway was about 5 feet, with the wall to wall width being about 10 feet. And, thanks to the RoKC site, a view is just a short click away. http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/photos/photo?photoid=199904776
Sarah Stanton has already been ruled out by multiple parties (Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Pauline Sanders), who stood alongside her on the polar opposite of Prayer Man's position. We know none of us can be in two places all at once.
Well Mr Ford, apparently you are among "multiple parties"that have ruled out the possibility of Ms Sarah Stanton as PrayerPerson. However, so far I cannot join the "multiple parties". As for statements made by Mr Frazier and Ms Sanders, that is your interpretation, not mine. And, considering the width of the doorway landing area, I wonder, as I wander, just how far apart multiple occupants of the area can be? But, I was hoping the identification of the lady pictured on the steps might be addressed as well. In any event, I have monitored the PrayerPerson issue about as long as I can recall that it has been an issue as discussed on this forum, and I have yet to conclude that PrayerPerson is a male. And, that all but eliminates LeeHarveyOswald being PrayerPerson, in my well studied opinion.
On the contrary, Mr. Trotter, @ me sharing merely my interpretation. Both of the aforementioned multiple parties (Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Pauline Sanders) made their own observations on the actual day of the event, sharing their respective observations in sworn statements found in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381. Within that historical document, They both place Sarah Stanton, 41, standing alongside them in a position far away from Prayer Man on the opposite end of their specific position.
Any other specific female names you care to share today?
No sir! I see no need for any additional female names at this point. And, your just repeating the same conclusions without additional strong evidence will not, in all likelihood, alter my opinion. But, I would appreciate an identification of the lady on the steps seen in the picture linked to. In any event, you all have a nice day now.
Challenge - Albert Doyle - 05-04-2016
Alan's clearly in contempt.
When you have 2 different sources corroborating a 5 foot 5 or 6 height that is usually good in court and obviates the need for any spurious identity diversions:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8916.4520.html
Challenge - Alan Ford - 05-04-2016
LR Trotter Wrote:Alan Ford Wrote:LR Trotter Wrote:Alan Ford Wrote:Sarah Stanton has already been ruled out by multiple parties (Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Pauline Sanders), who stood alongside her on the polar opposite of Prayer Man's position. We know none of us can be in two places all at once.
Well Mr Ford, apparently you are among "multiple parties"that have ruled out the possibility of Ms Sarah Stanton as PrayerPerson. However, so far I cannot join the "multiple parties". As for statements made by Mr Frazier and Ms Sanders, that is your interpretation, not mine. And, considering the width of the doorway landing area, I wonder, as I wander, just how far apart multiple occupants of the area can be? But, I was hoping the identification of the lady pictured on the steps might be addressed as well. In any event, I have monitored the PrayerPerson issue about as long as I can recall that it has been an issue as discussed on this forum, and I have yet to conclude that PrayerPerson is a male. And, that all but eliminates LeeHarveyOswald being PrayerPerson, in my well studied opinion.
On the contrary, Mr. Trotter, @ me sharing merely my interpretation. Both of the aforementioned multiple parties (Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Pauline Sanders) made their own observations on the actual day of the event, sharing their respective observations in sworn statements found in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381. Within that historical document, They both place Sarah Stanton, 41, standing alongside them in a position far away from Prayer Man on the opposite end of their specific position.
Any other specific female names you care to share today?
No sir! I see no need for any additional female names at this point. And, your just repeating the same conclusions without additional strong evidence will not, in all likelihood, alter my opinion. But, I would appreciate an identification of the lady on the steps seen in the picture linked to. In any event, you all have a nice day now.
Fair enough, Mr. Trotter, once again appreciate the civil engagement.
In respect to the latter portion of your comment relative to the lady on the lower steps sir, her clothing doesn't match Prayer Man's attire (no offense to Him, she presents neat and clean while his upper garment is akin to a labor's work clothing).
in fairness to the discussion though, I am open to a follow up rebuttal, because after all isn't that what this is really all about? Seeking truth wherever evidence based research takes us.
Speaking of which, let's see where the evidence based research has brought us thus far in this Challenge:
Only one entity's existence has actually been supported by factual evidence: He was encountered at the front entrance before Officer Baker's stairway to heaven climb; He places himself six floors below outside, with a specific individual. No one else claims to have stood in His specific position. There is a reason for that.
Meanwhile, the combined efforts of prayer woman and her spawn have yet to offer a single specific evidence based fact to go on, not even one. No specific name, though everyone has a name; no credible explanation to explain away the "any strangers" litmus test; nor anyone establishing anyone else in Prayer Man's specific position. There's a reason for that.
Challenge - Ray Mitcham - 05-04-2016
Albert Doyle Wrote:Alan's clearly in contempt.That which you are beneath?
Quote: When you have 2 different sources corroborating a 5 foot 5 or 6 height that is usually good in court and obviates the need for any spurious identity diversions.
Let us see your sun plane calculations, Buttons.
Challenge - Albert Doyle - 05-04-2016
Ray,
I must have missed your explanation of why you give yourself the right to ignore clear proof of 2 separate confirming sources for Prayer Man being 5 foot 5 or 6?
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8916.4520.html
Challenge - Alan Ford - 05-04-2016
Ray Mitcham Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:Alan's clearly in contempt.That which you are beneath?
Quote: When you have 2 different sources corroborating a 5 foot 5 or 6 height that is usually good in court and obviates the need for any spurious identity diversions.
Let us see your sun plane calculations, Buttons.
Sainthood awaits you, Mr. Mitcham
Have to wonder if evidence based specifics matter in court?
Yet to date we have nary a single specific from those not yet ready to concede the obvious. They have nothing (0). Plenty of buttons, phantom handbags, etc., but nary a single evidence based specific. There's a reason for that.
Only one entity has provided any specifics to date within this Challenge, Prayer Man. There's a reason for that.
He has a specific name. He told anyone willing to listen where He specifically was, and who He specifically was with. He was encountered at the front door entrance, a specific location. Moreover, no one has ever lay claim to being in His specific position in the historical record. There's a reason for that.
Enjoy your day, Mr. Mitcham, wish you didn't have to explain that the Sun rises and sets everyday regardless of who may think otherwise.
Latest tally on the eve of Day Nine (9) of this Challenge: prayer woman, prayer person, prayer thing, prayer it, prayer ghost, prayer pick a spawn, etc. (0) specifics. They have nothing (0). There is a reason for that.
Challenge - Ray Mitcham - 05-04-2016
Albert Doyle Wrote:Ray,
I must have missed your explanation of why you give yourself the right to ignore clear proof of 2 separate confirming sources for Prayer Man being 5 foot 5 or 6?
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8916.4520.html
You haven't shown us any diagrams or photos to back your comments up. Maybe you can't.
What i choose to discuss is up to me. When are you going to produce your sun plane calculations, Buttons? Or don't you have any and your are just guessing?
Challenge - Ray Mitcham - 05-04-2016
Alan Ford Wrote:Ray Mitcham Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:Alan's clearly in contempt.That which you are beneath?
Quote: When you have 2 different sources corroborating a 5 foot 5 or 6 height that is usually good in court and obviates the need for any spurious identity diversions.
Let us see your sun plane calculations, Buttons.
Sainthood awaits you, Mr. Mitcham
Have to wonder if evidence based specifics matter in court?
Yet to date we have nary a single specific from those not yet ready to concede the obvious. They have nothing (0). Plenty of buttons, phantom handbags, etc., but nary a single evidence based specific. There's a reason for that.
Only one entity has provided any specifics to date within this Challenge, Prayer Man. There's a reason for that.
He has a specific name. He told anyone willing to listen where He specifically was, and who He specifically was with. He was encountered at the front door entrance, a specific location. Moreover, no one has ever lay claim to being in His specific position in the historical record. There's a reason for that.
Enjoy your day, Mr. Mitcham, wish you didn't have to explain that the Sun rises and sets everyday regardless of who may think otherwise.
Latest tally on the eve of Day Nine (9) of this Challenge: prayer woman, prayer person, prayer thing, prayer it, prayer ghost, prayer pick a spawn, etc. (0) specifics. They have nothing (0). There is a reason for that.
Bless you my son! :
:Don't forget the long hair and the purse to go with the imaginary buttons.
If Doyle, had any specific details, he would produce them but it is all in his mind.
He talks about "sun plane" but can't say what it means and show his calculations. Shows his level of intelligence.
As Walter Mondale used to say "Where's the beef?' Buttons?
Challenge - Alan Ford - 05-04-2016
Ray Mitcham Wrote:Alan Ford Wrote:Ray Mitcham Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:Alan's clearly in contempt.That which you are beneath?
Quote: When you have 2 different sources corroborating a 5 foot 5 or 6 height that is usually good in court and obviates the need for any spurious identity diversions.
Let us see your sun plane calculations, Buttons.
Sainthood awaits you, Mr. Mitcham
Have to wonder if evidence based specifics matter in court?
Yet to date we have nary a single specific from those not yet ready to concede the obvious. They have nothing (0). Plenty of buttons, phantom handbags, etc., but nary a single evidence based specific. There's a reason for that.
Only one entity has provided any specifics to date within this Challenge, Prayer Man. There's a reason for that.
He has a specific name. He told anyone willing to listen where He specifically was, and who He specifically was with. He was encountered at the front door entrance, a specific location. Moreover, no one has ever lay claim to being in His specific position in the historical record. There's a reason for that.
Enjoy your day, Mr. Mitcham, wish you didn't have to explain that the Sun rises and sets everyday regardless of who may think otherwise.
Latest tally on the eve of Day Nine (9) of this Challenge: prayer woman, prayer person, prayer thing, prayer it, prayer ghost, prayer pick a spawn, etc. (0) specifics. They have nothing (0). There is a reason for that.
Bless you my son! :
Don't forget the long hair and the purse to go with the imaginary buttons.
If the idiot, Doyle, had any specific details, he would produce them but it is all in his mind.
He talks about "sun plane" but can't say what it means and show his calculations. Shows his level of intelligence.
As Walter Mondale used to say "Where's the beef?' Buttons?
Appreciate the blessings, Mr. Mitcham, we all can benefit from timely blessings amid this journey we call life. May you & yours be showered with more than a few of your own Sir.
It's not easy to talk in specifics, so some people are left with little choice but to speak language void of it. There is a reason for that.
Politicians have mastered this trait, often "answering" a specific question with another question. There's a reason for that.
This simple Challenge within this thread is merely asking anyone who would rather avoid the obvious to produce a specific name for whatever masquerading Prayer Man wannabe they choose. Then offer a credible explanation to explain away why their specific named (prayer woman, prayer thing, prayer it, prayer ghost, etc. isn't a stranger). To date, no one has been able to do that. There's a reason for that.
IF Prayer Man isn't the obvious, then this Challenge serves to invite anyone to simply enlighten the research community with evidence based specifics to the contrary. No maybe, seems, appears, etc...
The wrongfully accused has offered more than a few specifics of His own to substantiate his claim to Prayer Man's existence. He even tells us precisely where He was, with a specific location, citing outside, precisely where Prayer Man appears in the photographic record; and, specifically shares who He was with, producing a specific name. Why so many specifics with the wrongfully accused, yet (0) for anyone or anything else to date. There's a reason for that.
Q & A relative to Prayer Man is just a click away -----> http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/prayer-man-faq
Challenge - Albert Doyle - 06-04-2016
Seems we've gone from warnings against ROKC proxying to open allowance of ROKC trolling.
Both height comparisons, to Frazier in Darnell, and Lovelady in Wiegman, prove Prayer Man is around 5 foot 5 and can't be Oswald. Ray and Alan are unable to disprove or even answer this.