Prayer Woman

[Thomas Graves]

Frazier is addressing the whole room, not just one person.

Like myself, Brian has noticed that Frazier's eyes, as well as his head, move to the right in synchronisation with the "We looked at one another" part of his statement.

The video quality of this section is better than the quality of this gif.

Duncan,

The man who asked the question that Frazier was addressing was sitting on the right side of the room, from Frazier's POV.

If you actually watch the part of the 48-minute and 53-second youtube video in which that man is asking that question, and how Frazier looks at him a few times in exactly the same direction while answering his question, you'll realize that Frazier doesn't "motion" with his head or eyes as you and Brian claim.

-- MWT 

[Duncan MacRae]

Duncan,

The man who asked the question that Frazier was addressing was sitting on the right side of the room, from Frazier's POV.

If you actually watch the part of the 48-minute and 53-second youtube video in which that man is asking that question, and how Frazier looks at him a few times in exactly the same direction while answering his question, you'll realize that Frazier doesn't "motion" with his head or eyes as you and Brian claim.

I disagree, the body language is completely different.

Frazier makes an unconscious and extremely short but noticeable visual pause when unconsciously visually describing his head and eyes motions turns towards Sarah Stanton.

[Duncan MacRae]

Just for the record, I was not banned from The Education Forum. 

[Thomas Graves]

Mike,

I posted:


Brian,

You always seem to shoot yourself in the foot.

I wasn't banned from the EF because I was claiming that Prayer Person couldn't be Oswald, but because Mikey had baited me with three successive, short, non-contributing, asinine posts on a thread (after Kathy Beckett had sternly warned both of us in PMs to behave ourselves while was on her away-from-Internet vacation in Europe), waited for me to "rise" to said insults and to post something sarcastic in reply, and then, like a rat, very quickly deleted his offending posts so that Beckett wouldn't see them when she "checked in," but would see my outrageous reply, instead.

-- MWT 



You replied:

That is fantasy,  Thomasitayuritovich. While you allowed yourself, and still do, the freedom to post, ad nauseam, your Bagley/spy wars plug, you completely lost your cookies when I set-out to begin answering (yes, ad-nauseum) them with my Howard Olson document which, as John Newman messaged me, served the purpose of “spiking Pete’s career”. Pete is Pete Bagley, for clarity.

That’s it. You made the rest of that up.

Mike,

You don't remember the three, consecutive, short, inane, "covering," non-contributing-to-the-thread posts you made on May 20, 2017, on page 1 of my new thread "For Chris Newton, Larry Hancock, Tracy Parnell and Other Critically-Minded Members"

Here's a screen shot of the pertinent part of that page, with your comments highlighted in bold text:


Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted unnecessarily abrasive post.
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Unnecessary, OT post
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Thomas Graves]

Mike,

I posted:


Brian,

You always seem to shoot yourself in the foot.

I wasn't banned from the EF because I was claiming that Prayer Person couldn't be Oswald, but because Mikey had baited me with three or four same-hour, successive, short-and- assinine posts on a thread (after Kathy Beckett had sternly warned both of us in PMs to behave ourselves while was on her away-from-Internet vacation in Europe), waited for me to "rise" to said insults and to post something sarcastic in reply, and then, like a rat, very quickly deleted his offending posts so that Beckett wouldn't see them when she "checked in," but would see my outrageous reply, instead.

-- MWT 



You replied:

"That is fantasy,  Thomasitayuritovich. While you allowed yourself, and still do, the freedom to post, ad nauseam, your Bagley/spy wars plug, you completely lost your cookies when I set-out to begin answering (yes, ad-nauseum) them with my Howard Olson document which, as John Newman messaged me, served the purpose of “spiking Pete’s career”. Pete is Pete Bagley, for clarity.

That’s it. You made the rest of that up."





Mike,

You don't remember the three, consecutive, short, inane, "covering," non-contributing-to-the-thread posts you made on May 20, 2017, on page 1 of my new thread "For Chris Newton, Larry Hancock, Tracy Parnell and Other Critically-Minded Members" ? ? ?

Here's a "copy and paste" of the pertinent part of that page, with your comments highlighted in bold text:


Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted unnecessarily abrasive post.
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Deleted
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Michael Clark
Super Member
Michael Clark
Members
4,268 posts
Gender:Male
Posted May 20, 2017 (edited)
Unnecessary, OT post
Edited May 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

Edited and posted for Mike Clark to prevaricate about.

-- MWT 

[Mark A. Oblazney]

Manipulation is not your strong suit.

I still think it was a dude taking pictures with a camera.  And tell us more about Mary Pinchot Meyer, Albert. Inquiring minds want to know, uh...... have you taken a bath yet?

[Barry Pollard]

Hughes and Lovelady in harmony, take a long hard look at his position pls Brian.

There is more than a hint of BWF in the above* and PM too but I'm wondering if Chris, or anyone really, could try and make them easier for us to see, if he/they haven't already.

*Girl in blue is bleeding into the area surrounding her and BWF was apparently wearing blue too(according to Bell) but look at Carl Jones' (the guy in front of BL)arm in front of the pillar, there's some nice definition there from that distance.  I think we see(we do) a flash of Buell's hand and blue shirted arm but apart from that I'd really like to know if we can let everyone see the person behind Lovelady in Hughes or not.  He/she/something seems to be fading in and out.

[Barry Pollard]

I am hoping that someone might take a look at the Hughes frames and try to enhance what's behind Lovelady but I suppose it's common sense really that PrayerMAN('cause that is what Darnell tell's us) is already in position ten seconds before he was caught by Wiegman.  I doubt everyone can see the quick, little flash of the head shaped thing but it's interesting to see you swallowing it already Brian because I don't remember you talking about it much, if at all.