Posts: 2,429
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
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
Posts: 2,429
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
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)
I could be mistaken but if someone is getting called out that's because someone else has proof of something. Mark, are you saying you have proof this bluried image whatever it is, is a woman?
Posts: 904
Threads: 6
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
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.
Larry
StudentofAssassinationResearch
Posts: 3,934
Threads: 473
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 1
Joined: Dec 2009
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.
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.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Posts: 2,429
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
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.
No I don't get special treatment nor do I want any perhaps it's the information I know that you seek mr. Doyle or whoever you are. I've never seen anyone whine about an image that could be nothing more than a blot on some camera film.
Posts: 2,429
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
04-11-2016, 09:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2016, 09:51 PM by Scott Kaiser.)
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.
Never in my life have I seen a group of grumpy old men act like a bunch of babies, ya'll must have hit middle-aged LOL
Posts: 2,429
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
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!
Posts: 3,934
Threads: 473
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 1
Joined: Dec 2009
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!
Your post is hilarious and I bet you don't even know why. :  : 
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Posts: 2,429
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Lauren Johnson Wrote: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!
Your post is hilarious and I bet you don't even know why. ::
You're right I don't but that's the beauty of humor.
Posts: 2,429
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Scott Kaiser Wrote:LR Trotter Wrote:Scott Kaiser Wrote:LR Trotter Wrote: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.
Never in my life have I seen a group of grumpy old men act like a bunch of babies, ya'll must have hit middle-aged LOL
That makes me wonder as I wander if so, so I don't know, but so what?
|
