04-11-2016, 10:05 PM
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?