Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Prayer Woman  (Read 1230223 times)

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #861 on: September 05, 2018, 10:52:35 PM »
"My daughter looks something like this" okay that's on it's own seems possible but since you didn't ask, how do you know what image was she looking at right then?
Certainly not the monkey because she already said "no, that's not her" then "no" again and then "she[in the "enhancement"] looks too young".
If she could change her mind that quickly you may as well dismiss everything she said.

What other images apart from the CD enhancement did she have in front her?
I'll bet she was looking at a fuller Wiegman and pointing at Reece.

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #862 on: September 05, 2018, 11:05:21 PM »



You going to tell me you never noticed?

Offline Anthony Clayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #863 on: September 05, 2018, 11:23:57 PM »

Gary Mack told me via Email that not only do they have it, they have THE film(Darnell) but to keep quite because there's problems with the rights to it. 

Film was shot in 1963, wouldn't only be covered for copyright laws at the time it was created. In the US, that was 28 years plus an additional 28 years that could be applied for. So even with the extension it would be out of copyright in 2019. Or is he concerned that the family will move for ownership of the original and sell it off?

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #864 on: September 05, 2018, 11:41:39 PM »
Film was shot in 1963, wouldn't only be covered for copyright laws at the time it was created. In the US, that was 28 years plus an additional 28 years that could be applied for. So even with the extension it would be out of copyright in 2019. Or is he concerned that the family will move for ownership of the original and sell it off?

I didn't question or pursue it Anthony, IIRC I got the impression that, they had it but couldn't use/sell/rent/hire/display it until the rights were properly established.
If it were down to Gary alone I get the feeling that he would want Darnell to benefit at least a little(Jimmy was still alive then too 2014/15 IIRC).
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 01:08:12 AM by Barry Pollard »

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #865 on: September 06, 2018, 12:39:52 AM »
Brian, off the record/tape you pointed Wanda to these "arms" and told her they looked fat, she agreed and now that's what she sees.

So now she sees "fat arms" and that means to her that this person must be obese and so now "it looks just like her"... that's some logic,
but she has no idea what she's looking at and how distorted it is from reality, that strange episode comes before your focus on the "too pretty" face.

You claim to have the same problem, you cannot seperate thea above image from reality but there should be a simple way to snap you out of it.
Search the entire internet and find an arm that looks anything like that mess.

Again, Wanda saw a "fat arm" and she makes an assumption that the entire person must be fat, that's it, from small acorns grow...
There's nothing else.  From one fat arm she thus concludes "it could be her"
but the face is not, since it's "too pretty" and the rest from Rosa.
Is that full and honest enough for you?

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #866 on: September 06, 2018, 01:23:11 AM »
...Maybe those that wish to pursue the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory would care to be involved, but those that study the evidence indicating that PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository, Ms SarahJuanitaDeanStanton, most likely see no need to do so.


Quite possibly the craziest thing you have wrote to date, your prejudice is really showing now you've relaxed a little, at your entrance you claimed you had none. 
You never fail to dissapoint and lest you forget, you speak for no one other than yourself as you keep reminding us.
"Most likely" is another way of saying you have no idea.
There is no evidence that indicates PM is a female.  ABSOLUTE ZERO and you've not once explained why you think PM LOOKS LIKE a female..

Offline Larry Trotter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
Re: Prayer Woman
« Reply #867 on: September 06, 2018, 05:11:49 PM »
I do not see any relative connection for any reason to "pick both a well known CT and LN to oversea(sp) the image acquisition and raise some serious money to make it reality".

Maybe those that wish to pursue the LeeHarveyOswald/PrayerManTheory would care to be involved, but those that study the evidence indicating that PrayerPersonImage represents a female then employed at the TexasSchoolBookDepository, Ms SarahJuanitaDeanStanton, most likely see no need to do so.

Quite possibly the craziest thing you have wrote to date, your prejudice is really showing now you've relaxed a little, at your entrance you claimed you had none. 
You never fail to dissapoint and lest you forget, you speak for no one other than yourself as you keep reminding us.
"Most likely" is another way of saying you have no idea.
There is no evidence that indicates PM is a female.  ABSOLUTE ZERO and you've not once explained why you think PM LOOKS LIKE a female..
::)As I do not recall making statements as stated here by MrBarryPollard, maybe he can provide the complete direct quote for each statement, along with reference for the complete conversation relative to said quote(s).
In any event, "Most likely" means most likely, just as "evidently" means evidently, just as "indicative" means indicative, just as "conclusion" means conclusion, just as "maybe" means maybe, just as "possibly" means possibly.