Prayer Woman

[Barry Pollard]

You going to tell me you never noticed?

[Anthony Clayden]

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?

[Barry Pollard]

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).

[Barry Pollard]

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?

[Barry Pollard]

...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..

[Larry Trotter]

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.

[Larry Trotter]

As I have concluded, it is reasonably important to provide evidence of a valid identification of the LadyImages standing with/beside LadyImage, aka GloriaCalveryImage, on the Elm St sidewalk between the two FreewaySigns as seen in ZapruderFilm viewing the passing PresidentialMotorcade.
 Notebly, valid relative LadyImage identification evidence solidly enhances the reliable evidence indicative of PrayerPersonImage representing SarahStanton.
 Admittedly, when viewing CouchFilm and/or DarnellFim, I had originally thought that GloriaCalveryImage had encountered BillyLovelady Image when reaching the stairs. However, since indications are that BLI has just left the stairs/landing and is walking west on Old Elm St, I now believe GCI is closely behind another LadyImage, possibly aka KarenWestbrookImage, who appears to be wearing a light color headscarf. And, along side of GCI on her right, is a LadyImage, likely aka KaranHicksImage, who is apparently dressed in white with a white or light color headscarf.
 Additionally, it is my conclusion that RunningWomanImage, as seen in CFilm/DFilm, is most likely aka CarolReedImage, who appears in ZFilm to be wearing a light color blouse, and is either wearing a reddish headscarf, or possibly has red hair.

[Barry Pollard]

"Most likely" means he has no proof and is guessing, as do words like possibly, indicative and maybe, apperently he's the only one that doesn't realise this and that's why he can make conclusions based on guesswork.

When he joined in here I said that one of his fiirst statements sounded biased because as he wrote, he had "never not doubted" PM=LHO, that means, in basic English and as I pointed out, that he had never even considered it.  He then denied he was biased but yet repeatedly and again as I just responded to, pigeonholes people based on what side of the PM issue they are on.  Specifically now he wrote, some of us wouldn't contribute to a fund for better images because they'd have nothing to gain, so I repeat, this mindset is just whacky and akin to "all CT's have this basic need for there to be a conspiracy in this case".

Now you answer my question Larry.
What witness, or group of witnesses, ever PROVED anything by what they said alone?  Pick any case you like.