Prayer Woman

[Barry Pollard]

Brian,
Weigman shows PM facing the front, shoulders square, yes, then Darnell shows him angled, so his body moved obviously. But you keep saying that PM would have to have put a foot down... Why? Why can't he be on the steps already in Wiegman and put a foot up to the landing for Darnell?

[Barry Pollard]

You also said his shadow was a foot off... wth?

[Barry Pollard]

Reporter with his leg up in Murray

[Larry Trotter]

If you read the original thread on the EF I think most of your queries could be answered Larry, the why now and what have you. Basically the theory is not constricted by testimony, you seem to class testimony as solid evidence and thus proof for PM not being Oswald whereas modern detectives have rejected such notions, they're going in the oppositite direction, good enough to support a case in court sure but to find the truth...

Lunchroom encounter is not set in stone, both Truly and Baker are human and stories can stray from facts with just the slightest provocation.

I don't know how you see a woman in Darnell, you'd have to explain it.
From your last statement above it seems that you've never even given the PM theory any credit at all, ever, even before checking the testimony?

Do you think it's possible that BWF(the only one there of real significance) was convinced that he might have seen LHO on the steps minutes affter the shots instead of during the motorcade? You think Fritz could manage that on his own?  That's all it would take.

"To claim that the image is that of a male is one thing...", to me it's the only thing that and the fact that it looks enough like him for this to continue.

Mr Pollard, I was about 245 miles away from DealeyPlaza at 12:30pm, CST on 11/22/'63, so I did not witness the event, but I remember hearing about it within minutes of the occurrence.. So, considering there is no eyewitness testimony, and several eyewitnesses were available, that places the accused LoneGunmanAssassin, LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Elm St entrance landing at the time, added to what I do see, along with testimony as to who was there, is the basis for my conclusion. To me, it appears as though it took about half a century for someone to decide an image of an un-identified person is LHO. The LHO as PrayerMan Theory to me defies common sense.

You sir, do not know what I have studied and what I haven't, but FYI, I spent a great deal of effort on the PrayerPerson subject, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter. I remain committed to my "conclusions" that the PrayerPerson image represents a female, then employed at the TSBD, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter as it occurred and do not believe the "HoaxTheory".

What are "most of my queries"?

[John Iacoletti]

I don't know if it's a woman or a man, but there is no good reason to think that it's Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Barry Pollard]

Mr Pollard, I was about 245 miles away from DealeyPlaza at 12:30pm, CST on 11/22/'63, so I did not witness the event, but I remember hearing about it within minutes of the occurrence.. So, considering there is no eyewitness testimony, and several eyewitnesses were available, that places the accused LoneGunmanAssassin, LeeHarveyOswald on the TSBD Elm St entrance landing at the time, added to what I do see, along with testimony as to who was there, is the basis for my conclusion. To me, it appears as though it took about half a century for someone to decide an image of an un-identified person is LHO. The LHO as PrayerMan Theory to me defies common sense.

You sir, do not know what I have studied and what I haven't, but FYI, I spent a great deal of effort on the PrayerPerson subject, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter. I remain committed to my "conclusions" that the PrayerPerson image represents a female, then employed at the TSBD, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter as it occurred and do not believe the "HoaxTheory".

What are "most of my queries"?

Simply, the Darnell frames we have available now were not there before 2013. You can see it evolving in  the thread on EF, it went from "it couldn't be him could it?" to "it has to be him" . Not sure but I think Murphy was still "new" to the research scene, so only took him ten(if that) years? Still not sure what point you are making though, I just found something new the other day. What is your point?

You did say you never gave it much credit, " never not refuted it" that shows a clear bias does it not? I took you at your word is all.
Do you have any evidence that discounts the idea that PM could get to the lunchroom before Baker did in less than a minute?

[Larry Trotter]

Simply, the Darnell frames we have available now were not there before 2013. You can see it evolving in  the thread on EF, it went from "it couldn't be him could it?" to "it has to be him" . Not sure but I think Murphy was still "new" to the research scene, so only took him ten(if that) years? Still not sure what point you are making though, I just found something new the other day. What is your point?

You did say you never gave it much credit, " never not refuted it" that shows a clear bias does it not? I took you at your word is all.
Do you have any evidence that discounts the idea that PM could get to the lunchroom before Baker did in less than a minute?

It is not a question of bias, Mr Pollard. After careful study, I reached a conclusion, and since I never concluded "agreement", therefor "never not refuted it" applies. Quite simple actually. Also, since I have reached a conclusion that there is no "PM", I see no need for any evidence about any "PM" activity.

Thanks for the conversation, but I stand by my stated conclusion, and if you wish to express disagreement, that is fine. But, admittedly, I am not sure of your conclusions about said subject matter. However, it appears as though you agree with the LeeHarveyOswald as PrayerManTheory, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter is a HoaxTheory. And that sir, is your privilege. But, without sufficient reliable provable evidence, I see no indication of changing my stated conclusions.

[Barry Pollard]

It is not a question of bias, Mr Pollard. After careful study, I reached a conclusion, and since I never concluded "agreement", therefor "never not refuted it" applies. Quite simple actually. Also, since I have reached a conclusion that there is no "PM", I see no need for any evidence about any "PM" activity.

Thanks for the conversation, but I stand by my stated conclusion, and if you wish to express disagreement, that is fine. But, admittedly, I am not sure of your conclusions about said subject matter. However, it appears as though you agree with the LeeHarveyOswald as PrayerMan Theory, as well as the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter is a Hoax Theory. And that sir, is your privilege. But, without sufficient reliable provable evidence, I see no indication of changing my stated conclusions.

Larry, make no mistake your input is most welcome, here's my position. I'm sure it's a man, that he's standing close to the southern edge of the landing, perhaps on the step (but I'd like to see that proven), seems to be drinking from something in Weigman, from the Darnell frames it looks enough like LHO to make me wonder too but I've never claimed it's him, in fact I found someone in the Cook film outside the TSBD that matches up nicely enough. So hardly a disciple but dispite all the argument against the very idea I still wonder because I believe it is actually possible for him to be somewhere other than the SN.
One of the major things against it beiing LHO is the fact that no observation in the entire photographic research history of this case seems, to me at least, to stand up today, so the odds are very slim but I'd still like put a little money on it being good.

You did say that the Lunchroom encounter was part of the reason why you doubted it, I then asked you if this person could get there before Baker and you said you won't even consider it but you already have, just not carefully enough. Even if the frames he is last seen are around 35secs post Z313 that still gives him 45-50secs to get up there and that's assuming that the 90secs is accuarate which yes I do not take that seriously, like the pigeons.., or Jackson, Brennan, Jarman and Co, Holland, Bowers etc, etc(actually from that group Baker and Bowers are probably the best but completely accurate? No chance).