Prayer Woman

[Alan J. Ford]

In the following video, courtesy of photo-journalist Dave Wiegman, at the 1:12 mark, there?s a woman walking along the street.  To her right-front at 45 degrees is a woman dressed in the same clothing colours as the genuine ?running woman?.

Texas School Book Depository employee Georgia Ruth Hendrix?s FBI statement on March 24, 1964 ---->

?At approximately 12:15 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the Depository Building and took up a position along the parade route along Elm Street about 150 feet west from the Depository Building entrance and viewed the presidential motorcade? I recall that just a few seconds after the car in which President John F. Kennedy was riding passed the position where I was standing, I heard a shot. At first I thought it was salute to the President, but when the second shot was fired and I saw the President fall down in the car I knew someone was shooting at him. When I heard the third shot I turned and fled back into the Depository Building.? ---->
 

Now, that Mrs. Hendrix in her statement above (watch the corresponding video too) has explained her actions, let?s narrow down precisely where Mrs. Stanton (RIP) stood on the entrance steps that afternoon ---->

Mrs. Robert E. Sanders (Pauline), Sr Clerk Accountant

"At approximately 12 :20 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the lunchroom on the second floor of
the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the Presidential Motorcade
which I knew was due to pass the Depository building at about 12 :30 PM. I took up a position at
the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my
recollection I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance."

"I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am
unsure as to the others.

With Mrs. Stanton?s precise location now established, please be mindful there are five employees standing in her vicinity that she would now have to teleport over and through to assume a position held by a man. Not to belabour the point but there is a rail bar on the stairs there she would have to hurdle as well (please excuse the eye-roll). Too bad the US Olympic Committee wasn?t on hand that afternoon to recruit her for 1964 for her hurdling skills...

Now, before we get to three separate instances where the male figure retains his position without any chance for Mrs. Stanton to teleport five human being beings directly in her path to assume his identity, here?s an email exchange I had with a family member of Mrs. Stanton ---->

On Jun 12, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon, Xxxxxxx (well it may be only morning where you are or just about noon...just the same have a good day),
>
> Trust your weekend was relaxing and time well spent with your loved ones--friends and family. 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.

To   Alan Ford a1anford@aol.com
X Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxx@xxxxx.com)To:you Details
image123.png (9.7 MB)
My grandmother

Sent from my iPhone
About your questions...her hair was white possibly premature gray short and curly
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 building described her as short and heavy-set on the very day President Kennedy was assassinated.

I just wanted to get confirmation of this. Fido is nudging his wet nose on the screen, signaling he wants to go out to answer nature's call before we turn in. This dog never seems to bother me unless I'm in mid-sentence. Trust all is well with you & yours this evening. Thanks so very MUCH for your time, Xxxxxxx.
>
> Alan

Did you note her distinctive hair colour? It?s MUCH lighter than the actual male individual she is supposed to be.

Did you note her girth? It?s 3X the size of the individual male figure some want her to be. In spite of these hocus-pocus attempts, in all three separate instances of photos of that gentleman, he remains well under 150lbs, nowhere near 200, 250, and let alone 300lbs.

Now, because I?m not in my familiar realm, with access to my research photos to share here, I ask that those of you reading along familiarize yourself with the film and/or photos of the following three photo-journalist: Mr. Couch (Malcolm); Mr. Darnell (Jimmy); and, Mr. Wiegman (Dave).

The significance of their respective contributions at different intervals proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the only unidentified male in Commission Exhibit 1381 continually holds his specific location in each of their filming intervals. These gentlemen confirm the Same person remains in the Same position throughout their respective filming sequence.

Given the above confirmation, How and When, Mrs. Stanton (RIP) teleports herself over into the polar opposite corner of her own stated position (in her own words, not mine & further confirmed by Mrs. Sanders (Pauline) makes even the magic-bullet blush.
Let?s not kid ourselves any longer?it?s way past time to give Mr. Murphy (Sean)the benefit of the doubt here, and summon the courage to fully examine his individual?s genuine identity moving forward, not because some of us will be right or wrong, but because truth matters. G-d bless you, Sean Murphy, Cheers M8

As I take leave amid the pending holiday rush ahead of us (Em is so full of beans today, thus pressing the need for us to get ahead of the projected, heavy holiday traffic volume), so, I?m left with no choice ladies & gentlemen but to end here for now until the new year. Back next year G-d willing to discuss this matter further in the full monty. Until then, best wishes to all for a safe, wonderful, memorable and Happy Holiday season.

[Alan Ford]

In the following video, courtesy of photo-journalist Dave Wiegman, at the 1:12 mark, there?s a woman walking along the street.  To her right-front at 45 degrees is a woman dressed in the same clothing colours as the genuine ?running woman?.

Texas School Book Depository employee Georgia Ruth Hendrix?s FBI statement on March 24, 1964 ---->

?At approximately 12:15 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the Depository Building and took up a position along the parade route along Elm Street about 150 feet west from the Depository Building entrance and viewed the presidential motorcade? I recall that just a few seconds after the car in which President John F. Kennedy was riding passed the position where I was standing, I heard a shot. At first I thought it was salute to the President, but when the second shot was fired and I saw the President fall down in the car I knew someone was shooting at him. When I heard the third shot I turned and fled back into the Depository Building.? ---->
 

Now, that Mrs. Hendrix in her statement above (watch the corresponding video too) has explained her actions, let?s narrow down precisely where Mrs. Stanton (RIP) stood on the entrance steps that afternoon ---->

Mrs. Robert E. Sanders (Pauline), Sr Clerk Accountant

"At approximately 12 :20 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the lunchroom on the second floor of
the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the Presidential Motorcade
which I knew was due to pass the Depository building at about 12 :30 PM. I took up a position at
the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my
recollection I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance."

"I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am
unsure as to the others.

With Mrs. Stanton?s precise location now established, please be mindful there are five employees standing in her vicinity that she would now have to teleport over and through to assume a position held by a man. Not to belabour the point but there is a rail bar on the stairs there she would have to hurdle as well (please excuse the eye-roll). Too bad the US Olympic Committee wasn?t on hand that afternoon to recruit her for 1964 for her hurdling skills...

Now, before we get to three separate instances where the male figure retains his position without any chance for Mrs. Stanton to teleport five human being beings directly in her path to assume his identity, here?s an email exchange I had with a family member of Mrs. Stanton ---->

On Jun 12, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon, Xxxxxxx (well it may be only morning where you are or just about noon...just the same have a good day),
>
> Trust your weekend was relaxing and time well spent with your loved ones--friends and family. 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.

To   Alan Ford a1anford@aol.com
X Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxx@xxxxx.com)To:you Details
image123.png (9.7 MB)
My grandmother

Sent from my iPhone
About your questions...her hair was white possibly premature gray short and curly
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 building described her as short and heavy-set on the very day President Kennedy was assassinated.

I just wanted to get confirmation of this. Fido is nudging his wet nose on the screen, signaling he wants to go out to answer nature's call before we turn in. This dog never seems to bother me unless I'm in mid-sentence. Trust all is well with you & yours this evening. Thanks so very MUCH for your time, Xxxxxxx.
>
> Alan

Did you note her distinctive hair colour? It?s MUCH lighter than the actual male individual she is supposed to be.

Did you note her girth? It?s 3X the size of the individual male figure some want her to be. In spite of these hocus-pocus attempts, in all three separate instances of photos of that gentleman, he remains well under 150lbs, nowhere near 200, 250, and let alone 300lbs.

Now, because I?m not in my familiar realm, with access to my research photos to share here, I ask that those of you reading along familiarize yourself with the film and/or photos of the following three photo-journalist: Mr. Couch (Malcolm); Mr. Darnell (Jimmy); and, Mr. Wiegman (Dave).

The significance of their respective contributions at different intervals proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the only unidentified male in Commission Exhibit 1381 continually holds his specific location in each of their filming intervals. These gentlemen confirm the Same person remains in the Same position throughout their respective filming sequence.

Given the above confirmation, How and When, Mrs. Stanton (RIP) teleports herself over into the polar opposite corner of her own stated position (in her own words, not mine & further confirmed by Mrs. Sanders (Pauline) makes even the magic-bullet blush.
Let?s not kid ourselves any longer?it?s way past time to give Mr. Murphy (Sean)the benefit of the doubt here, and summon the courage to fully examine his individual?s genuine identity moving forward, not because some of us will be right or wrong, but because truth matters. G-d bless you, Sean Murphy, Cheers M8

As I take leave amid the pending holiday rush ahead of us (Em is so full of beans today, thus pressing the need for us to get ahead of the projected, heavy holiday traffic volume), so, I?m left with no choice ladies & gentlemen but to end here for now until the new year. Back next year G-d willing to discuss this matter further in the full monty. Until then, best wishes to all for a safe, wonderful, memorable and Happy Holiday season.

A wonderfully informative post, sir. Thank you! 

As we approach the 55th anniversary of JFK's death, and 5 years on from the first outburst of argument about Prayer Man, the Anyone-But-Oswald brigade are angrier than ever, more disingenuous than ever and-------all out of ideas on the Alternative Candidate front.

Looks like they haven't got a prayer, man.

Looks like it really is Oswald up on those steps.

[Larry Trotter]

In the following video, courtesy of photo-journalist Dave Wiegman, at the 1:12 mark, there?s a woman walking along the street.  To her right-front at 45 degrees is a woman dressed in the same clothing colours as the genuine ?running woman?.

Texas School Book Depository employee Georgia Ruth Hendrix?s FBI statement on March 24, 1964 ---->

?At approximately 12:15 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the Depository Building and took up a position along the parade route along Elm Street about 150 feet west from the Depository Building entrance and viewed the presidential motorcade? I recall that just a few seconds after the car in which President John F. Kennedy was riding passed the position where I was standing, I heard a shot. At first I thought it was salute to the President, but when the second shot was fired and I saw the President fall down in the car I knew someone was shooting at him. When I heard the third shot I turned and fled back into the Depository Building.? ---->
 

Now, that Mrs. Hendrix in her statement above (watch the corresponding video too) has explained her actions, let?s narrow down precisely where Mrs. Stanton (RIP) stood on the entrance steps that afternoon ---->

Mrs. Robert E. Sanders (Pauline), Sr Clerk Accountant

"At approximately 12 :20 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the lunchroom on the second floor of
the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the Presidential Motorcade
which I knew was due to pass the Depository building at about 12 :30 PM. I took up a position at
the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my
recollection I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance."

"I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am
unsure as to the others.

With Mrs. Stanton?s precise location now established, please be mindful there are five employees standing in her vicinity that she would now have to teleport over and through to assume a position held by a man. Not to belabour the point but there is a rail bar on the stairs there she would have to hurdle as well (please excuse the eye-roll). Too bad the US Olympic Committee wasn?t on hand that afternoon to recruit her for 1964 for her hurdling skills...

Now, before we get to three separate instances where the male figure retains his position without any chance for Mrs. Stanton to teleport five human being beings directly in her path to assume his identity, here?s an email exchange I had with a family member of Mrs. Stanton ---->

On Jun 12, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Alan Ford <a1anford@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon, Xxxxxxx (well it may be only morning where you are or just about noon...just the same have a good day),
>
> Trust your weekend was relaxing and time well spent with your loved ones--friends and family. 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.

To   Alan Ford a1anford@aol.com
X Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxx@xxxxx.com)To:you Details
image123.png (9.7 MB)
My grandmother

Sent from my iPhone
About your questions...her hair was white possibly premature gray short and curly
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 building described her as short and heavy-set on the very day President Kennedy was assassinated.

I just wanted to get confirmation of this. Fido is nudging his wet nose on the screen, signaling he wants to go out to answer nature's call before we turn in. This dog never seems to bother me unless I'm in mid-sentence. Trust all is well with you & yours this evening. Thanks so very MUCH for your time, Xxxxxxx.
>
> Alan

Did you note her distinctive hair colour? It?s MUCH lighter than the actual male individual she is supposed to be.

Did you note her girth? It?s 3X the size of the individual male figure some want her to be. In spite of these hocus-pocus attempts, in all three separate instances of photos of that gentleman, he remains well under 150lbs, nowhere near 200, 250, and let alone 300lbs.

Now, because I?m not in my familiar realm, with access to my research photos to share here, I ask that those of you reading along familiarize yourself with the film and/or photos of the following three photo-journalist: Mr. Couch (Malcolm); Mr. Darnell (Jimmy); and, Mr. Wiegman (Dave).

The significance of their respective contributions at different intervals proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the only unidentified male in Commission Exhibit 1381 continually holds his specific location in each of their filming intervals. These gentlemen confirm the Same person remains in the Same position throughout their respective filming sequence.

Given the above confirmation, How and When, Mrs. Stanton (RIP) teleports herself over into the polar opposite corner of her own stated position (in her own words, not mine & further confirmed by Mrs. Sanders (Pauline) makes even the magic-bullet blush.
Let?s not kid ourselves any longer?it?s way past time to give Mr. Murphy (Sean)the benefit of the doubt here, and summon the courage to fully examine his individual?s genuine identity moving forward, not because some of us will be right or wrong, but because truth matters. G-d bless you, Sean Murphy, Cheers M8

As I take leave amid the pending holiday rush ahead of us (Em is so full of beans today, thus pressing the need for us to get ahead of the projected, heavy holiday traffic volume), so, I?m left with no choice ladies & gentlemen but to end here for now until the new year. Back next year G-d willing to discuss this matter further in the full monty. Until then, best wishes to all for a safe, wonderful, memorable and Happy Holiday season.

PrayerPersonImage is that of a MalePerson? I have seen no reliable indicative provable evidence of that claim.
SarahStanton's precise location has been established? I have seen no reliable indicative provable evidence of her "precise location" anywhere other than in the PrayerPersonImage space.
Is it your claim, AlanFord, that AlanFord had a telephone conversation with a CloseRelative of SarahDeanStanton? Can you provide reliable indicative provable evidence for said claim? 

[Steve Barber]

Classic LN crap and I will ask you a question when I want to, just like you did with Alan Ford. This is a forum and that's what it is for.

 Do yourself a favor while you do that.  Knock it off with the sarcasm and the condescending.

A bit like calling witnesses mistaken or simply liars when they say something you don't like. Is that what you mean? Spare me the hipocrisy!

 You mean the way you conspiracy nutters do with witnesses, like Bill and Gayle Newman, Zapruder and Sitzman, Hargis, Brehm,  and Mrs. Kennedy--all of whom said the head wound was nowhere near the back of the head where you conspiracy nutters claim the head was blown off?
 Spare me!

Yes, I agree. That's indeed pathetic. But I have never said anything of the sort, so why bring it up?

Well, I can't list everything you conspiracy nutters come up with.  It would take a lifetime to list all of the wacky theories you folks have come up with.  Sorry I didn't specifically mention yours.


So you weren't going to tell me what "great stuff" you have been doing, when you said;

"Have you done anything during the time you have spent with it, other than posting in forums?  I have. "

because that would be throwing your weight around, wouldn't it. It was just a casual remark not intended to impress, right? 

 Nope! I had no intentions of bringing it up. As I said, I don't bring up the acoustics topic in this forum.  I was merely responding to your question.  If you don't like the response, tough!

Of course it is a battle that can't be won. Do you really think there is any member on this forum with the idea that he/she can break the case wide open and expose all the official shenanigans that might have been going on? Of course not, and yes I am here discussing the case purely as a matter of interest. I don't care about the players in this drama and I have said that many times over. I'm merely interested in what really happened. I don't know if Oswald was the lone gunman he is made out to be or if something else was going on and I don't really care either way. If Oswald did it alone, he got what he deserved. On the other hand, if there was a conspiracy, so be it. But before I take your word for it which option it is I would like to examine the evidence myself.

Yes, and you like to be a dick about things that people post in support of their evidence when it doesn't suit your preconceived notions of what may have happened or did happen..  I know exactly what you are doing. It's all over this forum in every thread.


And, btw, I have never argued in defense of Oswald, but you, as a zealous defender of the faith, will likely always consider asking critical questions as arguing in defense of Oswald. It's the classic LN illness! 

 You talk about "illness"?  You conspiracy nutters are usually claiming that "LN" "drank the kool aid" , are "sheeple", and so forth, when you folks are the ones who have been brainwashed by conspiracy authors. That is your illness!  You cannot say the same for
 "LN" because books written saying Oswald did it are scarce.  There aren't that many "LN" books in comparison to the hundreds and hundreds of conspiracy books.

Good for you that you still find the time to study recordings of gunshots and accoustics, write essays about that and posting YouTube videos. I wouldn't have the time for all that.

[Martin Weidmann]

Could you please be so kind to try and understand how this forum works, so that I can reply to your comments without having to copy/paste everything?

Classic LN crap and I will ask you a question when I want to, just like you did with Alan Ford. This is a forum and that's what it is for.

Do yourself a favor while you do that.  Knock it off with the sarcasm and the condescending.

Pot meet kettle

A bit like calling witnesses mistaken or simply liars when they say something you don't like. Is that what you mean? Spare me the hipocrisy!

You mean the way you conspiracy nutters do with witnesses, like Bill and Gayle Newman, Zapruder and Sitzman, Hargis, Brehm,  and Mrs. Kennedy--all of whom said the head wound was nowhere near the back of the head where you conspiracy nutters claim the head was blown off?  Spare me! 

Are you talking to me or is it just delirium setting in? You seem to have a major problem with "conspiracy nutters" but I haven't got a clue what you are going on about.

Yes, I agree. That's indeed pathetic. But I have never said anything of the sort, so why bring it up?

Well, I can't list everything you conspiracy nutters come up with.  It would take a lifetime to list all of the wacky theories you folks have come up with.  Sorry I didn't specifically mention yours. 

Two comments; (1) I haven't presented any kind of theory ever, simply because I don't have one and (2) you seem to be suffering from paranoia, if you believe you can lump all the sceptics together and treat them equally.

So you weren't going to tell me what "great stuff" you have been doing, when you said;

"Have you done anything during the time you have spent with it, other than posting in forums?  I have. "

because that would be throwing your weight around, wouldn't it. It was just a casual remark not intended to impress, right? 

Nope! I had no intentions of bringing it up. As I said, I don't bring up the acoustics topic in this forum.  I was merely responding to your question.  If you don't like the response, tough!

So, tell me what did you mean when you said that you have been spending your time with the case on other things than posting in forums?

Of course it is a battle that can't be won. Do you really think there is any member on this forum with the idea that he/she can break the case wide open and expose all the official shenanigans that might have been going on? Of course not, and yes I am here discussing the case purely as a matter of interest. I don't care about the players in this drama and I have said that many times over. I'm merely interested in what really happened. I don't know if Oswald was the lone gunman he is made out to be or if something else was going on and I don't really care either way. If Oswald did it alone, he got what he deserved. On the other hand, if there was a conspiracy, so be it. But before I take your word for it which option it is I would like to examine the evidence myself.

Yes, and you like to be a dick about things that people post in support of their evidence when it doesn't suit your preconceived notions of what may have happened or did happen..  I know exactly what you are doing. It's all over this forum in every thread.

Oh you poor poor man, how in the world would you even know what (if any) my "preconceived notions" are. Fact is your haven't got a clue and you, like other LNs, simply don't like it when too critical questions are asked about the evidence. It only tells me just how little faith and confidence you have in your own evidence.

Bottom line; if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And please stop whining?. it's embarrasing!

And, btw, I have never argued in defense of Oswald, but you, as a zealous defender of the faith, will likely always consider asking critical questions as arguing in defense of Oswald. It's the classic LN illness! 

You talk about "illness"?  You conspiracy nutters are usually claiming that "LN" "drank the kool aid" , are "sheeple", and so forth, when you folks are the ones who have been brainwashed by conspiracy authors. That is your illness!  You cannot say the same for
 "LN" because books written saying Oswald did it are scarce.  There aren't that many "LN" books in comparison to the hundreds and hundreds of conspiracy books.

Touchy and paranoid... I haven't been brainwashed by anybody. In fact the only book I have read in this case is the WC report. I am not interested in the opinions of writers of books, be they pro or con.... I prefer to find out for myself, and believe me I have....

I have no horse in this race. I couldn't care less if Oswald did it alone or if there was a conspiracy. I just would like to know what really happened. My world view will remain intact either way, but for you, your world view would be completely destroyed if it turned out Oswald wasn't the lone gunman after all and that's just sad. 

One final comment; there will always be people like me, who - unlike you - do not swallow the offical story hook, line and sinker. Regardless of what the history books say, in the public domain the "Oswald did it alone" gang has already lost the battle. Perhaps you should just learn to live with that and take it from there.

[Thomas Graves]

Thanks Ray.

You ain't see nothin' yet, though.

Just wait until I start talking about Angleton's bugbears, (blond, short, very thin-faced) NIKOLAI LEONOV, and triple-agent "Byetkov*?" (IVAN OBYEDKOV).

Oh yeah, and triple-agent Alexei Kulak ("Fedora"), and ("Dept. 13") Oleg Brykin, and Gunter Schulz (Hoover's "Tumbleweed"), and ... gasp ... Valeriy Kostikov, and the fact that Department 13 of the First Chief Directorate was probably shut down in 1959!

--  Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

Larsen, GRAVES, and yes, you helped a little bit by swallowing your pride and honestly reporting Craig Calvery's voluntary observation that his mom is visible in Betzner 3 (wearing a black blouse, a black headscarf, and standing tall, not far from the Woman In All White).  Too bad you didn't tape record your conversation with him ...

Interesting how you leave me out of the equation so often, Brian, seein' as how it was I who tentatively identified Gloria Calvery in Betzner 3 about a year before you called her son ...

LOL

--  Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

There's more to it than that, Michael.

There's also Frazier's noticeable turning towards Prayer Person (or vice versa, or both?) at some point between the end of the Wiegman clip and the beginning of the Couch-Darnell clip, and how that fact correlates quite well with Frazier's stating that he and a "Sarah" (whom he claims was standing near him) both heard a girl who "came by" the steps soon after the final shot and announced to the people there (on the lower steps) that Kennedy had been shot, and how this "Sarah" and he had turned towards each other at that point and asked each other whether or not they had both heard this girl (most likely Gloria Calvery) correctly.

--  Tommy