Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Photo Analysis Skill Test
#1
Andrej Stancak has attempted to answer my Altgens/Wiegman challenge on his "JFKTruthMatters" blog...Typical of Stancak he does so on a remote website no one knows about with no attempt to post it where it will be noticed (The Education Forum)...

Andrej is ignoring my proof and sticking to his bogus claim that the partial face seen in between Lovelady & Shelley in Altgens is indeed Sarah Stanton...Stancak is doing this because he is trying to place Stanton somewhere other than Prayer Man...If Stanton is the tiny face then she can't be Prayer Man...If you take the time to endure Andrej's lengthy pseudo-analysis in the attached link you will understand his case...

However, as Andrej manages to do every time, he once again refutes himself and proves my case that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...

Please observe Andrej's "Figure 4" photo evidence in his article and take notice of his locating and identifying the synchronized frames between Altgens 6 and Wiegman...This part of his research is correct and can be seen as being so by the naked eye because the people in the images are in the exact same positions in both photos...Altgens 6 is equal to Wiegman Z256 or so...

If you review Stancak's case he attempts to justify his claim that Stanton is the little face in between Lovelady & Shelley by drawing an outline over what he claims is the faint image of Stanton in the shadows between Lovelady & Shelley...

I'm presenting this evidence as a skill test to see if anyone else can figure-out the fatal mistake Stancak has made in his lengthy analysis here...The dysfunctional research community, that is run by James Gordon, has created a situation where I cannot bring this to the attention of the Education Forum where I could prove my credibility and quickly dispatch Stancak and his Prayer Man rubbish in short order...Gordon has succeeded in making skilled debate, like that I offer, a site rules offense and treats brilliant argument as if it was a rules violation that needed to be quickly gotten off the board...Because of this backwards moderation the place where my final demolishing of the Prayer Man theory needs to be shown will never host this definitive proof...

I'm posting this in the hope that someone else will see the fatal mistake Stancak made and how it disproves ten years of his pseudo-analysis in one move...This is indeed a good example of how contradicting proof was ignored in the formulating of the Prayer Man theory...Oh, by the way...The partial face in between Lovelady & Shelley in Altgens 6 is Pauline Sanders...Altgens' telephoto lens makes it look like she is in between Lovelady & Shelley when she is actually well behind them and against the glass to the east side of the door:



https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/
Reply
#2
The answer is:

Stancak fails to input the fact that Pauline Sanders' face is illuminated by sunlight...That tells you a lot about her position that Stancak fails to inform the reader over...Stancak fails to relate that if Sanders has her face illuminated in Altgens, and Z256 Wiegman was taken at the same time, that means she would necessarily have to have her face illuminated in Z256 Wiegman as well...Stancak gets around this by trying to place Tiny Face behind Shelley, therefore explaining why you can't see Tiny Face's face illuminated in Wiegman...However he makes another serious analysis mistake by doing this...Stancak foolishly fails to realize that Shelley's head continues upward from where the shadow cuts-off on his face...Stancak tells you that you can see Stanton's hair rise above the illuminated part of Shelley's face, however he fails to tell the reader that the rest of Shelley's head would occupy that space, therefore obscuring any such features that would be located behind Shelley...You would not be able to see the alleged features of Sarah Stanton's hair that Stancak claims because Shelley's head and hair would be in the way...Also, since Shelley was probably close to Lovelady's 5 foot 8 height that means the 5 foot 4 Stanton's hair would not be visible behind Shelley in Wiegman...Stancak shows gross incompetence by not registering this and trying to show faint patches as being things the other evidence precludes...You can't show the hair of a 5 foot 4 person behind someone who is 5 foot 8...Stancak shows a basic level of analysis incompetence with this that no one calls him out on...

Another gaffe Stancak commits is he fails to realize Bill Shelley is facing south in both Altgens 6 and Z256 Wiegman...Shelley is tracking the limousine just like Lovelady...They are both watching the limousine go down Elm St...Here is Stancak's quote from the article:


" b) Bill Shelley, the man wearing a dark suit and a tie has his gaze orientated eastward in Altgens6 (red contour) but westward in Wiegman still (orange contour). "



Stancak is confused and shows basic research incompetence here because he fails to register that he himself said that Altgens 6 and Z256 Wiegman were taken at the exact same time...Therefore Shelley cannot be looking towards Houston St in one image and the limousine in the other...If they were taken at the same time then they must show the same thing...The problem here is Altgens possesses the illusion that Shelley is looking at Houston St when in fact he is looking in the exact same southern direction as Lovelady as they track the limo...If Stancak had more photo analysis competency he would realize that if Shelley was looking east towards Houston St that the back of his head would obscure Tiny Face...Basic anatomy would prove this...These basic photo analysis calculations are things Stancak never makes and they render his research invalid...You can't be looking east and south at the same time...The current research community shares Stancak's incompetence and fails to detect these fatal flaws in his research...


Stancak's bias to force Tiny Face to be Stanton causes him to miss important evidence...He refuses to process that Tiny Face is in a direct line with Pauline Sander's position against the glass divider as discovered by Bart Kamp...If you draw a line of transit from Altgens to Tiny Face you will see that Tiny Face is in the exact position that Kamp discovered Sanders in in Darnell...Stancak does not inform his readers of the fact that Chris Davidson discovered Sarah Stanton's face on Prayer Man in the clear Wiegman frame...While Stancak is occupying your attention with false pseudo-science claims that Stanton is behind Shelley, he is not mentioning the fact that both Frazier and Lovelady placed Stanton in the Prayer Man spot at the time of both Altgens 6 and Wiegman 12...Lovelady specifically told the FBI that Stanton was "Next to him to the far right of the entranceway when the limousine passed the front steps"...That was 9 seconds prior to Wiegman and placed Stanton in the Prayer Man spot...Frazier made clear that after the assassination he was staring in shock at Stanton after she related that Gloria Calvery had said the president had been shot...Darnell shows Frazier staring at Prayer Man who is standing to the far right of the entranceway in that film too...The Hughes Film shows Prayer Man behind Lovelady at the far right of the entranceway when the limousine passed...Very simply, Stancak is using pseudo-science to avoid admitting all the evidence shows that Tiny Face is Sanders and therefore Prayer Man is Stanton...Stancak outright ignores Dennis Morissette's discovery of Stanton in the Owens Film that shows Stanton was Prayer Man's exact height...That same film shows that Stanton's elbow-length dress sleeve matches that of Prayer Man exactly...This is proof positive that the so-called research community reacts to with ignoring and silence...You can't be a credible research community and do that...At some point you have to identify intelligent correct evidence...Especially concerning a topic that has caused so much damage to the cause of Kennedy research...


" c) The location of Sarah Stanton possibly changed as well during the time elapsing between the instant when Altgens6 picture was snapped and Wiegman film frame W12. "



Again, Stancak is confused and shows gross incompetency since he himself said that Altgens 6 and Wiegman 12 were taken at the exact same time...Therefore Stanton cannot be sneaking behind Shelley like Stancak foolishly asserts...The reason why Stancak posits this silliness is because he's looking for an excuse for Tiny Face not having her illuminated face visible in Wiegman 12...He's trying to hide her behind Shelley because he can't come up with any other excuse...In other words he's making the evidence fit his claim rather than the other way around...Stancak is aware that Tiny Face is Sanders...There is Stancak saying in public that Stanton is moving and changing locations in between images that were taken at the exact same time, with the community saying nothing...If the images were taken at the exact same time then they have to show the exact same thing and no changing of location is possible...


Chris Davidson doesn't help matters...He could apply his digital enhancement process to Z256 Wiegman and Hughes in order to clarify some of this but he doesn't because he looks at it politically and doesn't want to disprove his friends...
Reply
#3
Stancak responded on his blog:



Brian: please read my article again. The main message of my blog post was that there was no single Wiegman film frame that would match the doorway scene seen in Altgens6. The most obvious piece of evidence is the body orientation and the gaze direction of Carl Jones, the man standing on one of the lower steps at the western wall of the doorway. There is nothing such as “Wiegman Z256″ you mentioned, it is a nonsense invented by you. Theoretically, Wiegman frame 13 would be the frame to match Z255, but this is obviously not the case – and this is the point of my article. The partial face, the light oval shape seen between Lovelady and Shelley in Altgens6, can only belong to someone standing on the top landing. I considered in my 2019 Youtube video as possible candidates two so far unaccounted women who according to all witness testimonies stood on the top landing: Sarah Stanton and Pauline Sanders. From these two women, Sarah Stanton was found to be the better candidate because Pauline Sanders was too short; she only measured 4’11” or 5′ and her face including forehead would not reach the height of the light coloured oval shape which was most likely a partial face. Only Sarah Stanton was tall enough to fit that shape with her face. Besides, Pauline Sanders stood, according to her own account and according to her figure seen in Darnell film, at the back of the doorway, in the east part of it, and just in front of the glass window. Therefore, she could not have her face illuminated by sunlight – that part of the doorway was in shadow. Her figure was completely covered by Bill Shelley’s figure in Altgens6 and this is the reason for not seeing any trace of her body in that photograph. This has been demonstrated in my Youtube video linked in my article. I have nothing else to write to you. I hope my reply helps.
[/url]Like
[url=https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/2023/04/10/the-timing-of-wiegman-film-and-altgens6-photograph-questions-the-continuity-of-frames-in-zapruder-film/comment-page-1/?replytocom=37#respond][size=12]REPLY

[/size]


  • I replied:



  • [Image: 0bf71e6ca41e0274d9ecbc262b5594f8?s=48&d=identicon&r=G]Brian Doylesaid:
    [size=12]May 13, 2023 at 16:11

    Andrej – Since the Altgens 6 photo was taken at a time when the Wiegman Film was recording that means that some frame in Wiegman has to correspond to Altgens 6…What you show as “Wiegman 12” seems to be close enough so I don’t see why you reject my valid claim that Wiegman Z256 is close enough to the exact same scene seen in Altgens 6 that we can use it for comparison…Your criticism here is erroneous because one of those Wiegman frames, whether it be Z255 or other, does correspond to Altgens 6…The subjects were not moving fast enough to invalidate my reasoning that Tiny Face’s face would be lit by sun in both images since they were taken fractions of a second apart or even exactly at the same time…This argument still holds true and requires a credible answer…It is clear from your claim that Tiny Face, whom you call Sarah Stanton, had her sunlit face hidden behind Shelley with only her hair rising above…However you have failed to answer how the rest of Shelley’s head, that continues above the shadow line on his face, would block what you are saying is Stanton’s hair…If you properly drew Shelley’s entire head, as it would appear in that shadow, it would eclipse what you are saying is Stanton’s hair because Shelley was 5 foot 8 and Stanton was 5 foot 4…You are forgetting that we already know Stanton is 5 foot 4 thanks to Morissette’s discovery of Stanton in the Owens Film…A 5 foot 4 person’s hair cannot rise above a 5 foot 8 person’s head…


    You have also failed to make the basic calculation that Tiny Face’s height can be roughly determined by looking at Altgens 6…Tiny Face is about 4 inches shorter than Shelley who is right in front of her…That would make Tiny Face 5 foot 4…You are saying Pauline Sanders was 5 foot tall however you are forgetting that Kamp/Zambanini found a group photo containing Sanders and she was about as tall as the other women…Andrej – there is a basic thing that never gets rightfully expressed concerning the Prayer Man subject…Since we know Tiny Face is Pauline Sanders therefore her height is what we see in Altgens…And since Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton, her height is what we see on Prayer Man…Tiny Face is behind Molina in Wiegman 12 not Shelley…You are misjudging the compression distortion from Altgens’ telephoto lens and Tiny Face is further back than you think…


    You have failed to mention that Wiegman is the same film from which Chris Davidson enhanced Sarah Stanton’s face on Prayer Man…If you look at Morissette’s second screen shot of Owens you can just make out an elbow-length sleeve on Sarah Stanton…If we then go to Prayer Man in Darnell we see that exact same elbow-length sleeve…That’s a dead match and it proves that Prayer Man is Stanton…The reason Tiny Face is Pauline Sanders is because Tiny Face is standing exactly where Sanders told the Commission she was…Sanders retreated back to the glass and shadow in Darnell 40 seconds later…But she was lit by sun in Altgens 6…Both Lovelady and Frazier place Stanton in the Prayer Man spot in their statements…Lovelady did so 9 seconds before Wiegman in Hughes…Frazier, 45 seconds later in Darnell…


    This conversation needs to be had on the Education Forum however the moderator there, James Gordon, has determined my correct evidence deserves a life banning and removal from the community…

    [/size]
Reply
#4
It was a dude off the street taking pictures with a camera in order to get a better shot of the prez'.  You know, out of the 'sun plane' and all.

That film might just show up one fine day.  Sigh.  But Oswald shot Kennedy with the MC on the 6th floor.  Sorry.  It is what it is.
Reply
#5
O'Blazney has been posting that Oswald was a Lone Nut who shot JFK from the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor on sites run by  Lone Nutters...I see he has also posted it here....

I myself discovered damning new evidence of Sarah Stanton hearing Oswald say he did not intend to go down to watch the motorcade but intended to go back in to the "Break Room" instead...That Break Room was the 2nd Floor Lunch Room where Carolyn Arnold would see Oswald at 12:25...This is one of the most important discoveries in JFK conspiracy research history however it has been completely ignored by persons who dare present themselves as the main JFK researchers...

Bart Kamp even discovered corroboration of this when he found an interview of Jack Dougherty by Gil Toff in Malcolm  Blunt's archive....Dougherty told Toff that Oswald was up eating his lunch in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room while Dougherty ate his lunch down below in the Domino Room...Kamp dealt with this by simply pronouncing that it can't be right because we know Oswald was Prayer Man...Because of this undue influence the research community misses a major clue on the source of the problems with Dougherty's witnessing and testimony...Dougherty, like Sarah Stanton and Carolyn Arnold, had witnessed Oswald's true location in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room and his witnessing was bullied down and erased by those in charge of the cover-up...
Reply
#6
Stancak replied:


Me:  “Your criticism here is erroneous because one of those Wiegman frames, whether it be Z255 or other, does correspond to Altgens 6…”

Stancak:  >No, there is no Wiegman frame that would correspond to Altgens6.


Stancak is telling a rather stupid non-truth here that the research community lets him get away with...They know Stancak offers idiotic research like the above but they let him get away with it because it backs Prayer Man...This is how the clique corrupts and destroys good JFK research and enforces its rotten double standard...Wiegman Z256 does correspond to Altgens 6...Stancak is lying here because he knows Wiegman Z256 does not show what he is contending so therefore it proves him wrong...This is what Stancak and the Prayer Man people do...When the evidence works against them they say the evidence is wrong...The way the clique deals with Stancak is they ignore his Prayer Man garbage...However they then give him full welcome on their websites...

 
Stancak:  " >The reason for not seeing the partial face, seen in Altgens6, in Wiegman film is that Wiegman started to film after Altgens6 has been shot. The time that has elapsed between the start of Wiegman film and the instant of Altgens6 amounted to few seconds. During this time period, Carl Jones turned his body 90 degrees and stated to gaze in direction of Triple Underpass. During this time, Sarah Stanton slipped back behind Bill Shelley and this is the reason why the partial face is seen in Altgens6 but not in Wiegman film. "


    Stancak is just plain wrong here...Z256 Wiegman does correspond to Altgens 6...Anyone can compare Altgens 6 and Z256 Wiegman and see all the people in Altgens 6 are in the exact same positions in Wiegman Z256...It has been recognized by other researchers that Wiegman Z256 -257 is the same as Altgens 6...Stancak is lying here because Wiegman Z256 proves me correct and shows without a doubt that Stancak's claim that Stanton was in between Lovelady & Shelley is provably wrong...Instead of admitting that the film evidence proves him wrong Stancak claims that the film evidence is wrong...Another case of who are you going to believe? - Stancak or your own lying eyes?...The only reason we are still arguing this is because the research community dealt with this by locking threads and not conducting Peer Review of this material...Whenever I was proven correct the material was shut down and the community ignored the correct evidence...They attack and avoid correct evidence and then blame the person who produced it...This is why any simple Peer Review of what I am typing here on the Education Forum would put an end to the Prayer Man theory...The clique has the mods in their pocket and they are avoiding it by dishonest means...



Me:  “This argument still holds true and requires a credible answer…It is clear from your claim that Tiny Face, whom you call Sarah Stanton, had her sunlit face hidden behind Shelley with only her hair rising above…”


Stancak:  " >No, the partial face was in front of Bill Shelley’s head, not behind. Please view my video and stop misinterpreting my findings.



Again, Stancak shows bizarre incompetence here...Any simple Peer Review will show that Tiny Face is behind Shelley in Altgens...Stancak is once again confused because he argues that Tiny Face is behind Shelley in his own article...Tiny Face is back behind Molina in Wiegman because of the compression distortion in Altgen's telephoto lens as well as the fact that was where she (Pauline Sanders) was...


Me:  “However you have failed to answer how the rest of Shelley’s head, that continues above the shadow line on his face, would block what you are saying is Stanton’s hair…If you properly drew Shelley’s entire head, as it would appear in that shadow, it would eclipse what you are saying is Stanton’s hair because Shelley was 5 foot 8 and Stanton was 5 foot 4…”

Stancak:  " >It took me a while back in 2017-18 to grasp the fact that Bill Shelley was shorter than Sarah Stanton. Bill Shelley was 5’6’’, and the evidence of that is quoted in one of the final slides in my video. Briefly, Robert Proudhome contacted a newsman who knew Bill Shelley and Bill Shelley conveyed to that newsman his body height (5’6’’). Sarah Stanton’s body height can be best inferred from the family photograph; this analysis is also presented in my video. Since Sarah Stanton was taller than Shelley, a strip of her light-coloured hair can be seen above Shelley’s head in Darnell film and less clearly in Wiegman film. In Altgens6, Sarah Stanton had to lean forward because that face could not be at the place it is in Altgens6 with her whole huge body in the narrow space below the partial face. That space opened as a triangle to the back, so Sarah’s obese body head enough room behind the figures of Lovelady and Shelley, and her face was located forward due to her leaning forward. These things are difficult to figure out without modelling, however, I have done it and you can check it in my video. "



This is a trick that Stancak uses to avoid answering by means of incoherency...Stancak never answers the point that his claim that Shelley is looking at Houston Street is wrong because, if he were, the back of his head would obscure Tiny Face...Stancak never answers the point that human anatomy would mean the place where Tiny Face is seen would be blocked by the back of Shelley's head if he were looking at Houston St...Shelley is looking at the limousine in Altgens just like Lovelady...This is yet another example of Stancak's gross incompetency...He also fails to realize that even if Shelley were 5 foot 6 that Pauline Sanders is not behind him in Wiegman...She is up behind Molina and Stancak is just plain wrong in his claims...Stancak is just making up Stanton's light hair rising above Shelley's head because he is desperate to put Stanton there...



Me:  “You are forgetting that we already know Stanton is 5 foot 4 thanks to Morissette’s discovery of Stanton in the Owens Film…A 5 foot 4 person’s hair cannot rise above a 5 foot 8 person’s head…”

Stancak:  " >No, I do not know who is “we”. I do not belong to these people. I have repeatedly argued for higher than 5’4’’ Sarah Stanton’s body height. Please read the transcripts of your own interview with two members of Stanton’s family – they actually provided higher estimates than your 5’4’’.


Stancak is just plain ignoring that Chris Davidson recently determined that Stanton was 5 foot 4 in Morrisette's discovery of Stanton in the Owens Film...He gets away with it because the corrupted JFK research community rigs its websites so the discussion gets derailed before Stancak can be held accountable to Peer Review...Instead, me and my correct evidence gets punished...



Me:  “You have also failed to make the basic calculation that Tiny Face’s height can be roughly determined by looking at Altgens 6…Tiny Face is about 4 inches shorter than Shelley who is right in front of her…That would make Tiny Face 5 foot 4…You are saying Pauline Sanders was 5 foot tall however you are forgetting that Kamp/Zambanini found a group photo containing Sanders and she was about as tall as the other women…”

Stancak:  " >No, Pauline Sanders was a tiny woman. You can see it by comparing the relations between the top of her head and the height of Bill Shelley’s shoulder in Darnell. The group photograph you mentioned shows a bunch of ladies standing on the same level. I drew a line crossing the mean height of noses of all ladies (a red line in that particular slide in my video), and compared the mean height of all noses with the height of Pauline Sanders’s nose. Her nose was about 2 inches below that average-nose-height line, so she was shorter than an average woman in her age category. The average body height of women in USA in Sanders’s age category in 1963 was 5’2’’ (quoted at end of my video). Therefore, Pauline Sanders was about 2 inches shorter than an average woman, and this would give a value of 5’. Both this group picture and my analysis of Darnell film converge on a body height of 5’ for Pauline Sanders. "


More gobbledigook from Stancak...What he is saying is just dead wrong and if we could review the group photo I referenced it would prove me correct that Pauline Sanders was as tall as the other women in the photo...Stancak is lying once again and spinning evidence...His verbal garbage here has failed to answer the basic point that Tiny Face in Altgens is indeed Pauline Sanders and NOT Sarah Stanton as he falsely claims...The point remains that since we know Tiny Face is Pauline Sanders then her height is what we see in Altgens...Stancak dishonestly gives no answer to the FACT that Tiny Face's hair could not possibly rise above Shelley's head as seen in Altgens...Look at Altgens and you will see that Tiny Face is too low to allow her hair to rise above Shelley...It's right there in the photo but, as usual, Stancak just ignores evidence that disproves him...Therefore this is proof that Stancak is taking light-colored distortions in Wiegman and wishing them in to Sarah Stanton...


Me: “Andrej – there is a basic thing that never gets rightfully expressed concerning the Prayer Man subject…Since we know Tiny Face is Pauline Sanders therefore her height is what we see in Altgens…And since Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton, her height is what we see on Prayer Man…Tiny Face is behind Molina in Wiegman 12 not Shelley…You are misjudging the compression distortion from Altgens’ telephoto lens and Tiny Face is further back than you think…”

Stancak:  " >I do not know who is “we”, but I certainly do not condone a view that Pauline Sanders’face would match the partial face in Altgens6. I did this analysis in my video, it is there for all to see. Likewise, I never concur with the view that Sarah Stanton was Prayer Man. And here I can even forget your nonsense height arguments and just point you again to the fact that Sarah Stanton had light-coloured hair, possibly blonde, and quite thick at that, while the man known as Prayer Man had dark hair. This one difference is fatal for any attempt to attribute Prayer Man’s figure to Sarah Stanton. Bits of Sarah Stanton’s hair can be seen in all doorway documents: Altgens6, Darnell, and Wiegman. She stood where Buell Wesley Frazier said she had stood: to the left of him. You do not seem to understand the logical consequences of the mismatch between Sarah Stanton’s and Prayer Man’s hair colour.


Pure incompetence...Stancak says this right in the face of Owens that proves Stanton's white hair was dark in Darnell...This is proven by the fact that we know Stanton was on the top platform according to Murphy's own claim...Stancak is just outright ignoring that Frazier made clear in several interviews and statements that AT THE TIME OF THE PRAYER MAN PHOTOGRAPHY Stanton was standing to his right...Lovelady confirmed that Stanton was "Next to me to the far right of the entranceway when the limousine passed the steps" (Warren Commission)...That was 9 seconds before Wiegman where we can see Prayer Man in that spot...Prayer Man pivots towards Frazier from Wiegman to Darnell exactly how Frazier described Stanton as doing at the time...It is quite clear that the lack of Peer Review on the Kennedy internet, along with a clear bias, has led to Stancak being allowed to deny the evidence via his hair color straw man...After posting his ridiculous foot on the step claim Stancak accuses ME of offering nonsense...And does so while ignoring Davidson's confirmation that Stanton was Prayer Man's exact height in Owens...Stancak never answers the point about Altgens' telephoto lens distortion placing Sanders further back than he thinks...


Me:  “You have failed to mention that Wiegman is the same film from which Chris Davidson enhanced Sarah Stanton’s face on Prayer Man…If you look at Morissette’s second screen shot of Owens you can just make out an elbow-length sleeve on Sarah Stanton…If we then go to Prayer Man in Darnell we see that exact same elbow-length sleeve…That’s a dead match and it proves that Prayer Man is Stanton…The reason Tiny Face is Pauline Sanders is because Tiny Face is standing exactly where Sanders told the Commission she was…Sanders retreated back to the glass and shadow in Darnell 40 seconds later…But she was lit by sun in Altgens 6…Both Lovelady and Frazier place Stanton in the Prayer Man spot in their statements…Lovelady did so 9 seconds before Wiegman in Hughes…Frazier, 45 seconds later in Darnell…”

Stanton:  ">This is difficult to follow. Can you please write and post your analysis of Prayer Man, for instance on a blog? You can create your own blog for free, and you would have all the space to outlet your ideas and arguments there. Then, other people could read your theory and take you for word and discuss because it would be clear which data you are using to support your arguments."


It is not at all difficult to follow Mr Stancak...That is just your excuse for not recognizing what I have been posting for 10 years because you automatically reject it instead of honestly pursuing it...The failure here is not from my end...The evidence I have been posting for the last 7 years is clear enough...The problem lay with those who react to it with automatic rejection, trolling, false accusations of rules violations, and ultimately banning and censoring of correct evidence...They don't stop there...They then go after that poster and destroy him as a researcher...Why should I have to create a blog when the existing websites were set up exactly for discussion of such subjects?...Could it be that the blame lay with them and not me?...I'm sorry Andrej, but Davidson bringing out Stanton's face on Prayer Man is not difficult to follow...The only reason it was not subjected to Peer Review was because of a criminal moderator named James Gordon...



Andrej...If you were honest you would admit that I have proven my case here and on those websites...For you to say I deserved to be banned on those sites is a low blow and the truth is the clique influenced their favoring moderators and I was banned because the sacred cows were about to have their asses handed to them by someone they held in contempt and ridiculed...It exposed them for what they are and that couldn't be allowed...My evidence speaks for itself as does their desperation to use censorship to keep it from Peer Review...

For those reading this Andrej followed his reply above by removing my comments from his blog and blocking me from his comments section...He's never going to admit that Tiny Face is Pauline Sanders and therefore proves that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...This research community is absolutely shameless...
Reply
#7
I have to self-bust here...I looked over Stancak's claim that Wiegman started his camera after Altgens snapped his shot and I found it might possibly have merit...I'm not sure because it is very close according to the cars in the motorcade, but because I am honest, and objectively admit evidence, there is the possibility that Stancak is correct and Altgens was snapped a second before Wiegman started filming...However it makes no difference and Stancak is still ignoring the already-proven evidence that Tiny Face is Pauline Sanders and Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...Stancak is a real fraud and he couches his intentional deception in bombastic pseudo-analysis...It makes no difference because even if Stancak is correct and Wiegman started his camera as late as 2 seconds after Altgens snapped his photo Lovelady, Shelley, Molina, and Maddie Reese are all still in the exact same positions as they were in Altgens and did not move...Stancak is claiming that Sarah Stanton was Tiny Face and moved behind Shelley in that two seconds even though no one else moved...The reason it took me so long to analyze Stancak's claim is because he is so full of it on everything else that I didn't bother up to now...It makes no difference and Stancak is still trying to get away with saying the Tiny Face, that obviously belongs to Pauline Sanders, is Sarah Stanton...

This link shows the progress of the motorcade and it can be compared to the very start of the Wiegman Film where the Dignitary Car with Earl Cabell can be seen pulling in to Elm St...If you look at Altgens 6 you can see Lyndon Johnson's car and his Secret Service escort on Elm St...Altgens is either simultaneous to Wiegman starting filming or 1 or 2 seconds prior:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/animation.htm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3xR0WBPo8I&t=6s


So to save a lot of words, Stancak is taking Pauline Sanders, as seen as Tiny Face in between Lovelady & Shelley, and claiming she is Sarah Stanton...When you tell Stancak that Frazier and Lovelady clearly placed Stanton on the far right of the portal at the time of the Prayer Man photography he goes in to his poor confused innocent researcher routine where he asks you to go out and build your own blog with all the footnotes and references so he can understand...Trust me, Stancak is versed enough in the evidence to already be familiar with these references...He is just dishonestly trying to make you start from scratch on everything in order to wear you down as a gas-lighting technique...He does this because he knows the clique will let him get away with it and not call him out on it...See it yourself in Stancak's totally disingenuous reply below:


" Brian: I am afraid you are totally confused about everything you write about the topic. Please post the frame from Wiegman film you think matches Algens6 scene so that I could check. Alternatively, please post the link to the copy of Wiegman film you watched and the exact millisecond of the frame you think is a match. As per Carl Jones, it is not only his head he turned to redirect his gaze from roughly the direction of the Records building to roughly the direction of Tripple Underpass, it is his whole body that turned 90 degrees. Turning head could be accomplished in less than half a second, however, turning his body from the position he assumed in Altgens6 to the one in Wiegman would take about 2 seconds.

The partial face, you seem to agree exists in Altgens6, is not at a homologous location in Wiegman film; let me guess – could it be that the owner of that face moved back during the period elapsing between Altgens6 and onset of Wiegman film? You burned all bridges to the Education Forum by your vicious attacks on moderators (some of them are not even moderators any longer) and other Forum members and this is not tolerable in public space but you seem not knowing it. I respect your views, even if your views are confused, and am responding concretely and constructively. I am sure you can learn doing it too, and you may see a change in the attitudes to your posts and your person in the future.


One final point on peer-reviewing process. It starts with a researcher or group of researchers submit their article describing their research to a journal which has peer-reviewing capacity (editors, administrators, anonymous expert reviewers). Thus, the first step in this process is to have an article, a piece of work which describes the problem, how the problem was solved, and the results. If reviewers find the work sound, they may recommend the article for publication, if not, the article is rejected. Very often one or multiple revisions of original article are required before an article is accepted. I went through this process about 200 times as a submitting author or a reviewer. In JFKA community, there is no peer-reviewing body. Education Forum is a debate forum in which members exchange their views but there is no real peer reviewing – no contribution would be removed (rejected) because the findings or views are unlikely to be true, which cannot happen in a peer-review journal. As it is a platform for debates, members do just this – comment on anything they like and skip the rest which they are not interested in. However, manners that disrupt the flow of debate are banned: trolling, calling names, attributing evil motives to people who hold opposing views, ridiculing people, or bringing topics unrelated to the Forum objectives. It is not difficult to follow such rules. Also, the threads often become less attractive as the time flows and stop posting in the thred because the thread has exhausted itself; I find it all right and I do not try to bump “my” topics if I do not have anything new and worthy of mentioning. I hope this helps. "


Stancak dips heavily in to the "Vicious attacks against others" well because he is so bankrupt on the evidence...What he is saying is not at all true and the record on the forum shows I did not commit those offenses and was booted before my evidence could be discussed...If Stancak was honest he was part of those who attacked me and protested to James Gordon...Stancak posted in that Education Forum thread "I don't see why you are even allowed to post here" and helped get me banned...What Stancak is saying above is self-servingly false...There is a good enough Peer Review on the Education Forum to resolve this matter...I take exception to Stancak's patronizing explanation of Peer Review above because it would be proven to be false by simply going to the Education Forum and getting the skilled members to exert that Peer Review with credible moderation guiding it...Stancak speaks from the dishonest safety of colluding members holding back their research...Even the discoverer of Sarah Stanton's face on Prayer Man, Chris Davidson, held back and refused to follow-through on his own discovery for political reasons...Because of this my evidence has been intentionally ignored and those with the ability to seriously enhance the evidence have neutralized it with intentional starvation...Credible moderation means the moderators keep people honest and make them admit and follow-through on correct evidence...Not the opposite, as is occurring...Stancak invests heavily in straw men over posting style (manners) but anyone can see he does so in order to avoid discussing the evidence...Just the fact he is answering me on his blog shows that his accusations of intolerable posting style are false and he is just using them as an excuse...It is entirely obvious that Stancak only posts on his blog and does not come over to any fair playing field sites because he knows his material will not survive credible Peer Review scrutiny...Which brings us to Tiny Face and Stancak's claim that it is a mysteriously-vanishing Sarah Stanton...I am publicly challenging Stancak to a debate on his claim on the Education Forum where I got banned for posting the correct evidence that Prayer Man was Sarah Stanton...I am doing so sincerely and asking him to please stop making those false accusations against me that I am some kind of justly-banned rogue who can't post acceptably...I want Stancak to finally make his claim on a forum where he will be held accountable to Peer Review and be forced to acknowledge that Darnell shows Pauline Sanders exactly in the position that Tiny Face is in when you credibly acknowledge the compression distortion caused by Altgens' telephoto lens...Also, because of my banning the Prayer Man people were not forced to walk-through a Peer Review of Chris Davidson's discovery of Stanton's face on Prayer Man in Wiegman...Credible moderators would be able to see a person being unfairly defamed for the purpose of denying his correct evidence and hold those doing it accountable...Stancak is playing dumb and instead of answering my points of evidence directly he feigns confusion and asks me to go create an entire blog so he can understand what I'm getting at...Stancak is pretending that he is incapable of going to the Education Forum and simply looking up Morissette's recent thread where Davidson showed Stanton was Prayer Man's height...You can also see Prayer Man has the exact same dress sleeve as Stanton in that newly discovered Owens Film evidence...

Sure Andrej...It's my attitude that is the problem here and not my evidence that you are conspicuously avoiding in public...Stancak's false accusations are proven to by insincere by simply asking him why my discovery of the most important witness in 45 years is being ignored?...Is it because of manners Andrej?...
Reply
#8
Stancak responded:


" Brian: I already responded to your previous querries but you did not get the message. There cannot be any discussion about Sarah Stanton being Prayer Man because she had light-coloured hair and Prayer Man had dark hair. It stops right here. I have nothing to discuss with you, publicly or privately. "


Stancak is using the false claim that Prayer Man's hair being dark in Darnell proves that Prayer Man isn't the white-haired Sarah Stanton in order to ignore the rest of the evidence...The claim that white hair must appear white in photography is easily disproven by means of the most basic consultation with photo analysis experts...The real fact here is Darnell's film equipment made Stanton's white hair appear dark in the shadows because of its contrast properties...We already know this because we have proven Prayer Man is Stanton by means of the other evidence Stancak is ignoring...Therefore the fact we see Prayer Man's hair appear dark proves that Darnell's film makes white hair appear dark in shade...A good example of Stanton's hair appearing white-colored is seen in the Owens Film...Clearly Stancak is cherry-picking excuses and using them to avoid the greater evidence that disproves them... 



" As far as Pauline Sanders is concerned, I have identified her figure in one Darnell still; she stood where she said in her account for the FBI she stood: close to the glass door in the east part of the doorway, with Sarah Stanton standing next to her. "


The image where Pauline Sanders is seen in Darnell is about 30 seconds after Altgens 6...She had plenty of time to move back to the glass divider where she told the Commission she was standing...Mr Stancak, you seem unwilling to consider that Tiny Face is exactly where Pauline Sanders would be standing when watching the motorcade...You refuse to recognize that I have proven beyond a doubt that Prayer Man is Stanton so therefore the only other person Tiny Face could be is Pauline Sanders...Sarah Stanton was next to Sanders when she first came outside...However both Lovelady & Frazier made it quite clear that Stanton was over in the Prayer Man position at the time of the Prayer Man photography...Mr Stancak, I have posted this repeatedly and I see you have never once recognized or responded to it...If indeed Stanton were by Sanders then you would see her next to Sanders in Darnell...We can see Prayer Man pivot towards Frazier from Wiegman to Darnell exactly as Frazier described Sarah Stanton as doing at the time...You seem to be applying deliberate amnesia to the fact Chris Davidson produced Sarah Stanton's face on Prayer Man in the clearest Wiegman frame...Frazier said Stanton was "Standing deepest in to the shadows on the front steps" and one look at Prayer Man shows him to be deepest in to the shadows...Stanton also said she could not see the limousine at the time of the shots and indeed we see the west wall of the portal blocking Prayer Man's view of the limo at the time of the shots...You have no right to ignore this avalanche of evidence...It all points towards Prayer Man being Stanton and it cannot be avoided with false photography claims...This is why you must volunteer your material to independent, objective Peer Review on the Education Forum...



" She was tiny and therefore her figure could not account for the bright shape seen in Altgens6. "



Since Tiny Face is Pauline Sanders her height is what you see in Altgens...Furthermore the height seen on Tiny Face shows you that no hair could rise above Shelley's head that is at least 4 or 5 inches taller than Tiny Face in Altgens...You are contending Tiny Face's hair rose above Shelley's head...But Altgens shows Tiny Face is too short for that to happen...




" Her figure was in shadow and obstructed by Shelley’s figure in Altgens6. I have provided a full reconstruction of Altgens6 doorway including Pauline Sanders in my video. If you do not agree with my reconstruction of Altgens6 doorway, you are free to outline your view in proper form with all references to support it, like I did. It is not enough to say that the bright shape between Lovelady and Shelley belonged to Pauline Sanders, you need to provide some supporting data, such as witness testimonies or a proper photographic analysis. I am sorry to hear about the impact of hurrican Ian on your life and hope you will rebuild your life soon. "




Andrej -  Don't muddy the clearly-seen face in between Lovelady & Shelley in Altgens by reducing it to "bright shape"...I see you have stopped showing the highest resolution images of Tiny Face...It is not a "bright shape"...It is the clearly-recognizable eyes and forehead of Pauline Sanders...

Please do not say "I am free to outline my view in proper form"...I am not free and I have been subjected to a rights-violating persecution because of my already-presented evidence...You yourself slandered me and justified this brute censorship by saying "I earned my banning"...I am not free and I continue to be the victim of false accusations of sites rules violations committed by persons who were only trying to prevent me from disproving a very popular theory...The JFK internet presents itself as a place designed exactly for persons like me to present their correct conspiracy evidence and then when you do you get shut down, banned, ignored, and destroyed by researchers who operate in wolf packs with crony moderators in tow...You are encouraging me to present my evidence but ignoring the fact I have been seriously wrongfully denied that opportunity by corrupted moderators and their friends...

I am not guilty of the violations you accuse me of, as is proven by this conversation here...There is no legitimate reason for this conversation to not be brought to the forum that was designed to host it on the Education Forum...The only reason it is not is because the Prayer Man group dominates that website and exerts a personal agenda over objective research in order to protect that core group...This is proven by the fact the exact same 95% of members that I disproved are the same people who are ignoring my evidence and supporting my unfair banning...They are pretending that they are not using pathetic censorship to avoid evidence that would normally be discussed on the board...It is also proven by the fact that exact same 95% are also ignoring my discovery of the most important new conspiracy evidence in 45 years...Those people, who say they are there to recognize important conspiracy evidence, are so doggedly determined to avoid admitting wrongness on Prayer Man that they would ignore one of the most important cases of conspiracy evidence in Kennedy research history all in order to maintain their control...So this is not a matter of no significant consequences...This is probably THE first and foremost issue in Conspiracy research for which these boards were created...It literally will lead to the solving of the conspiracy and, as it turns out, the people who are most opposed are the people who call themselves Conspiracy Researchers...All so they can support Greg Parker's ridiculous Prayer Man claim...
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence David Josephs 105 290,428 24-08-2020, 03:26 AM
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
  The Dealey Plaza Test Nick Lombardi 17 15,521 15-01-2017, 11:02 AM
Last Post: Joseph McBride
  The Selectice Service card photo Drew Phipps 26 20,545 08-08-2016, 05:37 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Dartmouth Study of Backyard Photo supposedly confirms authenticity Tom Bowden 38 15,752 08-07-2016, 02:11 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  New article on Neutron Activation Analysis Tracy Riddle 2 2,722 29-01-2016, 08:22 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  Analysis of NPIC Briefing Boards Adam Kemp 10 11,577 27-01-2016, 06:03 PM
Last Post: David Josephs
  Interesting new photos and photo analysis of the Plaza Peter Lemkin 0 3,536 08-12-2015, 07:36 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Dartmouth does 3D study of backyard photo Drew Phipps 10 9,182 20-05-2015, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Bob Prudhomme
  FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades Richard Coleman 1 2,172 21-04-2015, 03:54 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  UPDATED RESEARCH: Front Throat Shot Research Analysis "Z225" / Contact for free copy Anthony DeFiore 0 1,877 28-12-2014, 04:48 PM
Last Post: Anthony DeFiore

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)