Moderator Sandy Larsen

[Brian Doyle]

You're just repeating the same questions over and over Alan...

It is well known in photography that certain cameras and film types will present light-colored objects as being dark in shade...The camera adjusts to the bright part of the subject field and therefore the contrast is skewed in the shade parts of the subject field, as seen in the Depository front entrance with its bright sun vs dark shade...We have already debated this and you ignored it every time I posted it (like trolls do)...You won't find any blond hair showing up in the dark/shade parts of Darnell because his camera and film is registering light-colored hair as dark, as seen with Stanton...

You practice a deceptive form of analysis Alan where you always stay on the offensive and must be asking the questions lest it becomes too clear that you are the one who has failed to answer the points...Because you make a bogus argument that white must appear white in shade with Darnell's equipment you avoid answering the fact that we can see Prayer Man pivot towards Frazier from Wiegman to Darnell...In Wiegman Prayer Man is facing forward towards the motorcade and in Darnell Prayer Man has turned towards Frazier...This pivot is the exact turn Frazier described Stanton as making at that exact time when she turned to tell him what Calvery had shouted...

Because you make a technically invalid argument that white must appear white you relieve yourself of having to answer the FACT that Altgens 6 shows everything to Frazier's left in clear detail...Therefore for your false claim, and misquoting of witnesses, that Stanton is to Frazier's left is provably false because if Stanton were to Frazier's left we would clearly see her in Altgens...But we don't...Even worse, if we go to Wiegman Z256 we can see the exact same scene in Altgens 6 taken at the exact same time from a 90 degree angle and Stanton is clearly not to Frazier's left...Every time I post this definitive proof you ignore it and repeat your same idiotic points...Altgens 6 and Wiegman Z256 prove that Stanton is not to Frazier's left...Every time I post this you ignore it and repeat your same trolling points... 

Your idiotic points above do not make Lovelady's locating of Stanton to the far right of the entranceway go away...Nor does it make Prayer Man being in that exact spot in the Hughes Film go away...

A while ago your trolling doppleganger "Alan Ford" posted the sharp Darnell frame, that clearly showed a female dress neckline on Prayer Man, on the Education Forum...The forum did its best to ignore that obvious proof...If we could post that image here you would see that Stanton's dress neckline was seen on Prayer Man in that Darnell frame...No one is trying to clean up Owens to see if we can match that neckline with Stanton but it doesn't matter because several converging instances of evidence already proved Stanton was Prayer Man...

The above should be enough for any credible researcher to realize Prayer Man has been proven to be Stanton so anyone who is ignoring it in contempt in order to offer already-refuted regressive arguments should be moderated...

[Alan Ford]

You're just repeating the same questions over and over Alan...

On the contrary, Mr. Doyle, you are refusing to answer the questions, because if you dare the quicksand around you will continue to envelop you as your self-serving narrative void of facts continues to spiral downward out of control. You cannot say Sarah Stanton is in a dark dress and then later of your own choosing now put her in a white blouse (it's one or the other, Mr. Doyle, make up your mind sir) 

It is well known in photography that certain cameras and film types will present light-colored objects as being dark in shade...The camera adjusts to the bright part of the subject field and therefore the contrast is skewed in the shade parts of the subject field, as seen in the Depository front entrance with its bright sun vs dark shade...We have already debated this and you ignored it every time I posted it (like trolls do)...You won't find any blond hair showing up in the dark/shade parts of Darnell because his camera and film is registering light-colored hair as dark, as seen with Stanton...

Oh, dear and let those of us reading along guess that that same effect plays a role in her considerable weight/girth and well pronounced forearms as well...You are only kidding yourself, Mr. Doyle, her hair colour is different from Prayer Man's and her physique is triple the size of Prayer Man. And. according to you she can be in a dark-hued dress with a hemline, then akin to the exploits of the "magic-bullet" can suddenly change her attire at will to fit your false assumptions. Are you taking yourself seriously, Mr. Doyle? 

You practice a deceptive form of analysis Alan where you always stay on the offensive and must be asking the questions lest it becomes too clear that you are the one who has failed to answer the points...Because you make a bogus argument that white must appear white in shade with Darnell's equipment you avoid answering the fact that we can see Prayer Man pivot towards Frazier from Wiegman to Darnell...In Wiegman Prayer Man is facing forward towards the motorcade and in Darnell Prayer Man has turned towards Frazier...This pivot is the exact turn Frazier described Stanton as making at that exact time when she turned to tell him what Calvery had shouted...

Wrong. A-G-A-i-N.

Your false narrative would be better served if you chose to have Mr. Frazier (Buell Wesley) turn to his left, where there is a rather large female figure dressed in white 3x the size of Prayer Man. The only person on Mr. Frazier's right is the male Prayer Man figure. 

Because you make a technically invalid argument that white must appear white you relieve yourself of having to answer the FACT that Altgens 6 shows everything to Frazier's left in clear detail...Therefore for your false claim, and misquoting of witnesses, that Stanton is to Frazier's left is provably false because if Stanton were to Frazier's left we would clearly see her in Altgens...But we don't...Even worse, if we go to Wiegman Z256 we can see the exact same scene in Altgens 6 taken at the exact same time from a 90 degree angle and Stanton is clearly not to Frazier's left...Every time I post this definitive proof you ignore it and repeat your same idiotic points...Altgens 6 and Wiegman Z256 prove that Stanton is not to Frazier's left...Every time I post this you ignore it and repeat your same trolling points... 

Look for her in Weigman (Robert) and Darnell (Jimmy) if you dare...because there is a rather heavy-set woman there to Mr. Frazier's left. The only person to Mr. Frazier's right is the male Prayer Man figure. Moreover, Both Mrs. Stanton and the woman she was standing next to, Mrs. Sanders, shared that they stood together on the East side of the TSBD entrance steps.  Together is defined as in close proximity with one another, not alone over on the opposite side of the entrance steps where the male Prayer Man is positioned. 

Your idiotic points above do not make Lovelady's locating of Stanton to the far right of the entranceway go away...Nor does it make Prayer Man being in that exact spot in the Hughes Film go away...

Wrong A-G-A-I-N, Mr. Doyle. 
You are confusing the actual evidence to merit your own "evidence"...in this case when Mr. Lovelady would look over his shoulder while finishing off his lunch right there on the steps, yes, of course, Mrs. Stanton was on his right (you keep shooting yourself in the foot, Mr. Doyle). 

Mr. BALL. You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY. Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton.

A while ago your trolling doppleganger "Alan Ford" posted the sharp Darnell frame, that clearly showed a female dress neckline on Prayer Man, on the Education Forum...The forum did its best to ignore that obvious proof...If we could post that image here you would see that Stanton's dress neckline was seen on Prayer Man in that Darnell frame...No one is trying to clean up Owens to see if we can match that neckline with Stanton but it doesn't matter because several converging instances of evidence already proved Stanton was Prayer Man...
The above should be enough for any credible researcher to realize Prayer Man has been proven to be Stanton so anyone who is ignoring it in contempt in order to offer already-refuted regressive arguments should be moderated...

Oh, dear...

On the contrary, Mr. Doyle, the Education Forum akin to the fine leadership here on this forum doesn't jump to conclusions every time someone shares "new" information in this case. Unlike you, the leadership here and over at the forum you mentioned care to fully examine everything in a fair/objective manner before drawing false clumsy conclusions about a woman 3x the size of Prayer Man opting to change her sex right there on the TSBD steps to become a MUCH smaller male figure now on steroids. 

For the most part, Mr. Ford, and I have been cordial in our exchanges and I will continue to be.  Save for our  mutually agreed upon differences in who we think the male Prayer Man figure is. I respect his right to present his case, but as for me I am convinced the male Prayer Man figure is just who Mr. Murphy (Sean) and quite a few other exemplary researchers say He is. 

"It's Him" -- Sean Murphy, November , 2013 

[Alan Ford]

It' comes with no great surprise that the only individual unaccounted for in *Commission Exhibit 1381* still remains -- after all these years since Mr. Murphy (Sean's exemplary research) is still the Prayer Man figure. There's a reason for that...

"It's Him" -- Sean Murphy, November , 2013

It's him indeed. Sean, cheers! mate 

Self-reminder: Should Mr. Doyle weigh in again about how his candidate for Prayer Man is Mrs. Stanton (Sarah) remind him of the following exchange between me and Mrs. Stanton's loved one to keep him honest about her genuine appearance rather than his self-serving narrative about how she steals the identity of a MUCH smaller male figure w/much darker hair colour, etc...

> On Jun 12, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> Good afternoon, Xxxxxxx, trust your weekend was relaxing and time well spent with your loved ones. Nothing new here
on my end, but I would like to ask you several questions, which by all means you are at liberty not to answer if you
care not to. 

X Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.comHide
To Alan Ford a1anford@aol.com
 X Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxx@xxxxx.com)To:you Details
image123.png (9.7 MB)
My grandmother in the 40’s
Sent from my iPhone
…about your questions...her hair was white possibly premature gray short and curly 
x xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx (Xxxxxxxxx@Xxxxxx.com)To:you Details
image125.jpeg (230 KB)
5’4 to 5’6 very heavyset just like the picture I sent from the 60s in a park with her son... you can also tell her hair was
light by then...Her weight then and up until the time she passed is why there are very few photos of her...she did not
like taking them.
Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 PM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> Aww...you must be very proud of her, Xxxxxxx, She looks so kind and unassuming. Makes me recall fond memories of my own Mum.
Cannot thank you enough for your kindness, patience and generous nature, Xxxxxxx, it is appreciated. In fairness
to you, I feel like I owe you at least an explanation about my inquiry into your paternal-grandmother's physical
appearance in the early 1960's. Two men who worked in her same office building described her as short and heavy-
set on the very day President Kennedy was assassinated. I just wanted to get confirmation of this, thus my question
to you about how would you best describe her in the early 1960's. Appreciate your timely response, thank you!
Fido is nudging his wet nose on the screen, signaling he wants to go out to answer nature's call. Trust all is well with you & yours this evening. Thanks
so very MUCH for your time, Xxxxxxx, Semper Fi.
> 
> Alan

*Update (Thursday, April 25, 2024) @ 11:12AM EST
With due credit to this exemplary website, I will be using their member "Away Status" feature before signing out today ---->

Away Information
Away Status:
I'm Away I'm Here
Away Reason:
Return Date:

So, please be mindful in my absence of anyone else using my name prior to my designated return (09/12/2024). Not sure how that happened over on Mr. MacRae's site, nevertheless, I trust it won't happen here. I will be using the time away to continue tweaking and fine tuning some of my images of Prayer Man with a friend who worked at the former Kodak camera facility in Rochester, NY and an acquaintance down in Northern Virginia as well. I will share that content in its preliminary form in a new post before taking leave today, and hope to return this Fall with further enhanced images. Best wishes to all for a safe, healthy and wonderful Summer ahead.

[Alan Ford]

PM photo enhancement (A) Will continue to tweak, refine and further enhance as much as possible this Summer
 

Prayer Man photo enhancement (B) Will continue to tweak, refine and further enhance this Summer.

Over to my profile to record my "Away" status and date of return this Fall (Thursday, September 12, 2024)

Away Status:
I'm Away I'm Here
Away Reason:
Spring & Summer hiatus back in the Fall
Return Date: 12 September 2024

[Brian Doyle]

Larsen is taking on Pat Speer and his smearing of frontal entry wound witnesses like Tom Robinson...However Larsen himself is guilty of passing along the dirty smearing of myself as having violated Education Forum rules and been rightfully banned...Apparently Larsen is selective in which smearing of innocent witnesses he recognizes and which he doesn't...Smearing of Prayer Man debunkers is OK with Larsen...

In 2016 I tried to present Davidson's Enhancement as being proof that Prayer Man was a woman...James Gordon falsely accused me of violating Education Forum site rules, he was obviously making up as he went along, and banned me...Gordon and Knight have been falsely enforcing this criminal ban ever since because they both don't want Prayer Man disproven on the Education Forum because it will all too clearly show that they don't know what they are doing and are guilty of banning innocent members who presented correct evidence...Gordon is a liar and he keeps referring to myself as one of the worst violators of Education Forum rules in its history...Gordon, however, skipped the part where he ever showed any actual evidence that I was guilty of that...He was clearly protecting his friends and their wrongful belief that Prayer Man was Oswald...Gordon used my banning to avoid the proof I presented that Prayer Man was Sarah Stanton...Whenever Gordon is confronted on this he abuses his power and avoids answering the point about the guy with the correct evidence getting a life ban and that evidence never being shown...Gordon bullies his way in and switches the subject to his drama queen lies about what a bad bad guy I am...He's a crook and the 95% of the Education Forum members who benefitted from never admitting they were wrong on Prayer Man are not going to challenge him...


Sandy Larsen is a firm Prayer Man supporter - which is why he was assigned the new role of administrator on the Education Forum...Gordon stepped aside because he confessed he had stolen nearly a year's worth of member's dues...Gordon hangs on however, to make sure innocent researchers who were banned for their correct evidence stay banned...This is enforced by Gordon basically holding a knife to the website's throat like all good crooks...

So while Larsen has a banning-enforced sanctuary to moralize against Speer, him and the members are not telling you that he deleted a photo analysis that proved beyond a doubt that the man going up the Elm St extension was definitely Billy Lovelady...Larsen isolated the plaid pattern in Lovelady's shirt in Martin and conclusively matched it to the man's shirt on the extension...Realizing he had provided proof for the timing of Frazier talking to Sarah Stanton on the front steps Larsen dishonestly deleted his photo analysis from the Education Forum, even though the entire membership had seen it...Larsen is a dirty crook in other words who abuses his moderator authority, just like Gordon, in order to prevent the Prayer Man evidence (that he and his photo analysis helped debunk) from being shown...You can see why Gordon saw Larsen as a suitable replacement...When Mark Knight enforced my banning and refused to let me back on to the Education Forum Larsen casually passed along Knight's ruling without challenge even though he doesn't hesitate to moralize over Speer...These guys are all crooks and they have hijacked the JFK internet...When the Deep Politics website was formed the criminal nature of the Education Forum moderation was openly recognized as part of the reason for the formation of DPF...Now fealty to that dirty bum Jim DiEugenio has left the DPF's original purpose as a sanctuary from EF corruption unclear...I have never seen Mark Knight or James Gordon rule on Larsen's dirty dishonesty vs his Lovelady photo analysis while Larsen is over there calling people out...

[Brian Doyle]

The point stands unanswered that Sandy Larsen and the Education Forum are intentionally and dishonestly ignoring the fact that the recent woman's dress neckline seen in Darnell and Morissette's discovery of Sarah Stanton in the Owens Film are proof that Prayer Man is Stanton...Larsen assisted the Education Forum in thread-sliding the threads that attempted to discuss those key two pieces of evidence and their significance towards the Prayer Man theory out of view...The troll "Alan Ford" brought the woman's dress neckline to the forum's attention but he did it in combination with several other demented claims that were used to avoid direct addressing of the woman's neckline evidence...So the Forum, under Larsen and Gordon, successfully avoided any honest admission of what that evidence showed...As for the Owens Film, Stanton is the exact same height and girth as Prayer Man and also has an elbow-length sleeve that is identical to that of Prayer Man...Discussion of this was diverted by Gordon, Knight, and Larsen while they get away with the murder of calling themselves credible moderators...

 
When I asked to be re-admitted to the Education Forum to show this important correct proof Mark Knight switched the subject to my calling Kathy Becket a bad name on a totally unrelated site that had nothing to do with the subject...Knight was forced to that totally dishonest tactic because he is well aware that I never broke any Education Forum rule (which seems to be made up at the time by that crook Gordon)...Whenever the subject of my membership or the Prayer Man evidence arises Gordon or Knight come in and hijack the issue and switch the subject to me instead of the evidence...This is a pure example of the corrupted, abusive Education Forum moderatorship that Deep Politics formed in opposition to...The mods at the EF reserve the right to dishonestly dodge the real issue and switch to ad hominem whenever their mismanagement of the site is discussed...For 8 years they have done this whenever the subject of my being banned for showing the correct evidence on Prayer Man arises...When confronted a few months ago Mark Knight dishonestly switched the subject to an obvious excuse and Vichy Sandy passed his ruling along without challenge...When Berlin sends the order Vichy Sandy simply puts those on the list on the deportation transport...Never once have any of the Education forum members or moderators asked how that affects the correct evidence on Prayer Man that is obviously being dishonestly avoided...


The Education Forum does not run by correct evidence or objective academic standards...It runs by corruption and the moderators abusing their authority and having things their way while falsely accusing innocent people...The EF has a fatal flaw it refuses to address...By allowing Lone Nutters and deniers it practices a double standard of enforcing "correct methodology when told" against certain selected individuals while not enforcing the same standard against the Lone Nutters who are obviously in denial...This creates a breach where it is actually the moderators who are guilty of not following correct evidence procedures - not to mention that I was the only one with the correct Prayer Man evidence and wasn't even guilty of failing to follow correct evidence procedures...Gordon is a horse's ass and he was just making that up as he went along because he doesn't know what he is doing...They know it so they resolve it by persecuting those who correctly call them out on it...Sandy works himself in by quietly accepting that rogue double standard and those who uphold it and he does it by means of Prayer Man...Under Gordon the EF practices a scam where every issue is posed as a dire threat to the highest standards embodied by that pompous ignoramus Gordon, so even a word of resistance is seen in the strictest terms...It's Gordon's way of threatening the membership to make sure he stays in power...Look at those assholes trying to get away with ignoring the fact I proved they were wrong on Prayer Man and proved Prayer Man was Sarah Stanton...