Oh, pardon me! Don't flatter yourself, Mr. Ford! None of you conspiracy buffs say anything that "scare" me!
Your question is both ridiculous and stupid. You expect a person to name "a credible alternative" to "Prayer man", when none of us know what all of the men who worked at the depository looked like! Furthermore, no one knows whether "Prayer man" is an employee of the TSBD or someone off the street! So there's your answer! Like it or not!
I don't just like your answer, Mr Barber, I
love it--------it shows how lost you are on this issue!
Now! Prayer Man (and I note your agreement that's it's a Man not a Woman) is not just in the Darnell film but in the Wiegman film too. At the time of the shooting, therefore, he is standing over by himself at the west side of the front entrance.
Here's where your problem starts, Mr Barber... Every single Depository worker who came to work that day gave account of their whereabouts at the time of the shooting. Not a single one---------not a one!----------puts themselves where we see Prayer Man. They
all put themselves
somewhere else!
What this means is that your 'we don't know what all employees looked like' line is a hopeless deflection. Because even if you could come up with the name of a single employee whose appearance (physiognomy, clothes, hair) might make them a fit for Prayer Man (which you obviously can't!), that person would be
immediately ruled out by virtue of their known presence elsewhere. An example of this would be Mr Billy Lovelady, whom we know was NOT standing beside Mr Billy Lovelady at the time of the shooting!
Keeping up so far, Mr Barber? Good for you------------let's proceed!
The collapse of your 'some other Depository man' argument leaves you with your Hail Mary pass: Prayer Man is a random stranger off the street. The fact that you resort to
this second hopeless argument merely tells us that your powers of logic leave a lot to be desired.
On the one hand, you tell us how
crazy it is to suggest that a nondescript employee (Mr Oswald) might have blended in all but unnoticed amongst a bunch of fellow employees;
on the other hand, you tell us that you have no problem believing that a
stranger could have stood up there----------
the sole non-employee in an area filled only with employees------------and NOT have stood out like a sore thumb.
Your scenario, in short, is based on irrational thinking--------------par for the course with LN 'researchers' like you whose intense emotional investment in Mr Oswald's guilt clouds their cognitive faculties when it comes to assessing evidence that doesn't fit their beloved narrative!
A much more sensible-------------not least for
your own ultimate peace of mind, Mr Barber!-----------would be to accept that a) you got this case all wrong, b) an employee who we now know claimed to have gone "outside to watch P. parade" did indeed do so, and chose a place where plenty other employees were congregated, and unsurprisingly didn't stick out like a sore thumb (as your mythical Random Stranger would have done!).
