Given the sworn statements recorded in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381 some five decades ago, Prayer Person isn't a stranger. That much we are sure of. So, that said, Why is it so hard for anyone placing anyone else other than the obvious in Prayer Man's specific position unable to produce a specific name? for him/her?
Why is that simple task so difficult?
Everyone has a name. Everyone else has already shared in sworn testimony where they stood that afternoon (none of them by the way stood in Prayer Man's specific location). For those who wish to override this specific sworn testimony some five decades ago, just give either of your choice a specific name.
Again, the simple challenge here for everyone in the prayer person and/or prayer woman camps, just account for either a prayer person or prayer woman in that specific location with a specific name. I'm going on record here and saying it cannot be done. There's a simple reason for that. I think deep down we all know why. But, Of course, admitting the same may be akin to honoring a dental appointment for some.
Make no mistake here, It's pretty obvious (there's a person there), Prayer Man is a reality; however, we have yet to hear anyone disputing that it is the wrongfully accused, simply give their figure, her/him/it, a specific name. Why?
So far in this debate we have only one specific name already provided as a strong possibility (1)
prayer woman failed miserably to offer a specific name (0) Why?
prayer person fails to offer a specific name (0) Why?
Alan, with most of the TSBD employees (especially the women), we have no contemporary photographs or physical descriptions of them. Quite a few gave only very general statements about where they were standing, not specific enough to be sure if they might be prayer man/woman.
The reason why the "name that person" challenge is not logically, legally, or debate-wise credible has been posted repeatedly. Its resubmission in a new thread is basically an indication that its issuer is aware of the merit of the Murphy-refuting evidence. Something obviously bugs the issuer. We are approaching a Cinque level of discussion at this point.
Because those who have reasonably proven that Prayer Man can't be Oswald, by a simple height comparison in Darnell, can't name the actual woman seen in Darnell is not a sound counter to the evidence that has already been shown. There's only one credible challenge at this impasse. That would be for the opposition to acknowledge and respond to the reasonable science that has shown Oswald can't be Prayer Man.
If Frazier was 6 foot in height and Prayer Man is more than obviously 6-7 inches shorter, Oswald very simply can't be Prayer Man and it really is as simple as that for those willing to admit it.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Alan, with most of the TSBD employees (especially the women), we have no contemporary photographs or physical descriptions of them. Quite a few gave only very general statements about where they were standing, not specific enough to be sure if they might be prayer man/woman.
A good point, Mr. Riddle, however sir, Would it be fair to say those women weren't laborers but general office workers? How many employers do you know in a professional setting like a publisher's office would allow their employees to dress akin to Prayer Man? I get the impression a professional setting like that requires much higher standards.
That said, other than that one specific name already attributed to Prayer Man, it seems anything and everything else offered to date has to deal in generics rather than specifics. There is a reason for that. Why is everything and anything else void of specifics?
Specific Count Total:
Prayer Man (1) with ample evidence to back up his claim, offering more than a few specifics.
prayer woman (0) no specific name, let alone any specific details
prayer person (0) no specific name, let alone any specific details
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Alan, with most of the TSBD employees (especially the women), we have no contemporary photographs or physical descriptions of them. Quite a few gave only very general statements about where they were standing, not specific enough to be sure if they might be prayer man/woman.
A good point, Mr. Riddle, however sir, Would it be fair to say those women weren't laborers but general office workers? How many employers do you know in a professional setting like a publisher's office would allow their employees to dress akin to Prayer Man? I get the impression a professional setting like that requires much higher standards.
That said, other than that one specific name already attributed to Prayer Man, it seems anything and everything else offered to date has to deal in generics rather than specifics. There is a reason for that. Why is everything and anything else void of specifics?
Specific Count Total:
Prayer Man (1) with ample evidence to back up his claim, offering more than a few specifics.
prayer woman (0) no specific name, let alone any specific details
prayer person (0) no specific name, let alone any specific details
Again, there is a reason for that.
The only thing we can tell about the person's dress is that he/she has bare arms. Like many of these female office workers:
"Why is everything and anything else void of specifics?"
Because there isn't enough information to be more specific?
When we take the same photographic image above into consideration, Mr. Riddle, only Prayer Man has razor thin hair, or void of a bonnet/scarf. Where others may not be wearing a scarf their hairdos are MUCH longer than Prayer Man's, even the women who choose to wear theirs short.
*credit Mr. Murphy (Sean)
Which gets us back to specifics again:
Wrongfully accused (3) (where were you? "out front"; with who? "Billy Shelley"; and, no one else places their position in his specific location)
prayer woman (0), no specific name, let alone any specific details, which given most women's propensity to talk, no offense to Em or any other women, we should have at least something however remote to go on. Fails the "any strangers" litmus test.
prayer person (0) no specific name, let alone any specific details. Also fails the "any strangers" litmus test.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Alan, with most of the TSBD employees (especially the women), we have no contemporary photographs or physical descriptions of them. Quite a few gave only very general statements about where they were standing, not specific enough to be sure if they might be prayer man/woman.
A good point, Mr. Riddle, however sir, Would it be fair to say those women weren't laborers but general office workers? How many employers do you know in a professional setting like a publisher's office would allow their employees to dress akin to Prayer Man? I get the impression a professional setting like that requires much higher standards.
That said, other than that one specific name already attributed to Prayer Man, it seems anything and everything else offered to date has to deal in generics rather than specifics. There is a reason for that. Why is everything and anything else void of specifics?
Specific Count Total:
Prayer Man (1) with ample evidence to back up his claim, offering more than a few specifics.
prayer woman (0) no specific name, let alone any specific details
prayer person (0) no specific name, let alone any specific details
Again, there is a reason for that.
Mr Ford, as I posted on another thread, I have not seen "ample evidence" that indicates PrayerPerson is a male, and without that indication I cannot believe that the image represents Lee Harvey Oswald. I did express an opinion that the PrayerPerson image may represent Ms Sarah Stanton, and the reason for that opinion as to identity, is because there is ample testimony that Ms Sarah Stanton is among the occupants of the TSBD doorway entrance area at the time of the JFK assassination. As I have stated, I have not seen any satisfactory indication of any image that represents Ms Sarah Stanton being elsewhere at the time of the picture. So, I have not been able to remove her name as being the person represented in the image known to me as PrayerPerson. Although some may refer to the image as PrayerMan, or PrayerWoman, since that is their belief, I remain open minded and await ample evidence either way. I do believe, what may be thought of as ample evidence is actually only ample opinion. And, I again affirm that to my knowledge, my opinion is not mine alone, nor do I claim to be the first to offer said opinion. In any event, I do not believe the person represented in the PrayerPerson image is guilty of any wrongdoing in the murder of our elected president on 11/22/'63. But, this statement is about as specific I can reasonably be at this time.
The real question to ask remains - where is Wesley?
Mr. BALL - Then let's see, there was Billy Lovelady and you were there. Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - Anybody else you can remember? Mr. FRAZIER - There was a lady there, a heavy-set lady who worked upstairs there whose name is Sarah something, I don't know her last name. Mr. BALL - Were you near the steps? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I was, I was standing about, I believe, one step down from the top there. Mr. BALL - One step down from the top of the steps? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; standing there by the rail. Mr. BALL - By steps we are talking about the steps of the entrance to the Building? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Where is Wesley in Weigman (third photo down on the right) while Lovelady is at the exact spot he claimed he was...
Where is Wesley in Altgens?
Why is Lovelady not down a few steps?
Mr. BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. (Altgens) Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here. Mr. BALL - I see. Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.
Uh, not so much
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
I respect your position to narrow down the evidence based research as you see fit, Mr. Trotter, however, lest we forget...
Multiple sworn sources, Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Sanders (Pauline), place the heavy-set lady Sarah Stanton, 41, standing alongside them on the eastern end of those steps. Prayer Man's specific position is on the extreme opposite end.
In addition, the description of Sarah Stanton rendered by Mr. Frazier, quote, "heavy set lady", unquote, cannot account for Prayer Man's gaunt, thin face, nor his lack of a heavy set thick neck, and those two other things that are commonly attributed to heavy set ladies.
I cannot envision a heavy set lady, 41, having a thin face, slender neck, and toned forearms with dark razor thin hair void of noticeable gray to distinguish her forty years of life. Prayer Man is much smaller and younger than a heavy set 41 year old woman.
*credit Mr. murphy (Sean)
Which gets us back to specifics again:
Wrongfully accused (3) (where were you? "out front"; with who? "Billy Shelley"; and, no one else places their position in his specific location)
prayer woman (0), no specific name, let alone any specific details, which given most women's propensity to talk, no offense to Em or any other women, we should have at least something however remote to go on. Fails the "any strangers" litmus test.
prayer person (0) no specific name, let alone any specific details. Also fails the "any strangers" litmus test.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Alan, with most of the TSBD employees (especially the women), we have no contemporary photographs or physical descriptions of them. Quite a few gave only very general statements about where they were standing, not specific enough to be sure if they might be prayer man/woman.
Mr Riddle, sometime back, a still current researcher, but former poster on this forum, pointed out something about the image I refer to a PrayerPerson. He indicated a possible facial feature that may be looking slightly right, and towards the camera. And, although my first response was that PP is looking slightly left, after his observation, which may have included a possible double exposure, I have not been able to discern which direction the image of PP may be facing. And, I am only questioning a head turn, and not the complete image. Just curious about other thoughts.
