REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

Stan Dane at September 16, 2015 at 2:49 PM

This one's better for public consumption.

 

 

 

2 x 5 Stans for that, Stan.

If PM is a woman then why does that woman look like Oswald?

Stan, yer killin' me. What's next? I don't even want to hazard a guess... but I will.

If its not a woman or a monkey's uncle, perhaps a missing link?

"You may laugh, but Lamson says it checks out!" - Dunc.

Stan Dane at September 16, 2015 at 10:13 PM

"You may laugh, but Lamson says it checks out!" - Dunc.

I love this forum!!

Not only do you get the top notch info and research, but you also get an uncomprimising attitude and top quality humour.

You guys are the best....

No Bernie, you are my hero!!!!! 

"edit" In all seriousness, it's the members that make this place, the willingness to join and go through things and research together devoid of any ego.....

What Barto said... in 15 years on a number of forums, never seen anything like it. 

From Pat Speer at JFK Facts.

You’re not Alan Daly, Alan, and “Prayer Man” is most probably not a man, and almost certainly not Oswald. The operating thesis from the get-go for those claiming “Prayer Man” is Oswald has been that because the blurry figure looks like Oswald, to them, the burden is on others to prove it isn’t Oswald. From the very beginning I urged caution, seeing as “Prayer Man” looked more like a woman to me than a man. I also noticed that Buell Frazier claimed he’d been talking to a woman, Sarah Stanton, during the shooting, and that no one had identified Stanton in any of the pictures. So why didn’t the Prayer Man pushers find a picture of Stanton, identify her on the steps, and prove she was not Prayer Man? Because they “knew” Prayer Man was a Man. Well, I dropped out of the discussion at that point, as I will at this point. You can’t argue with religion. And the belief in “Prayer Man” has reached the point where it’s pretty much a religion, IMO.

Vinny at September 17, 2015 at 6:44 AM

From Pat Speer at JFK Facts.

 

You’re not Alan Daly, Alan, and “Prayer Man” is most probably not a man, and almost certainly not Oswald. The operating thesis from the get-go for those claiming “Prayer Man” is Oswald has been that because the blurry figure looks like Oswald, to them, the burden is on others to prove it isn’t Oswald. From the very beginning I urged caution, seeing as “Prayer Man” looked more like a woman to me than a man. I also noticed that Buell Frazier claimed he’d been talking to a woman, Sarah Stanton, during the shooting, and that no one had identified Stanton in any of the pictures. So why didn’t the Prayer Man pushers find a picture of Stanton, identify her on the steps, and prove she was not Prayer Man? Because they “knew” Prayer Man was a Man. Well, I dropped out of the discussion at that point, as I will at this point. You can’t argue with religion. And the belief in “Prayer Man” has reached the point where it’s pretty much a religion, IMO.

According to Gayle Nix Jackson's website, Sarah Stanton is the woman outlined in red in the Wiegman frame. She's not Prayer anything.

Vinny at September 17, 2015 at 6:44 AM

From Pat Speer at JFK Facts.

 

You’re not Alan Daly, Alan, and “Prayer Man” is most probably not a man, and almost certainly not Oswald. The operating thesis from the get-go for those claiming “Prayer Man” is Oswald has been that because the blurry figure looks like Oswald, to them, the burden is on others to prove it isn’t Oswald. From the very beginning I urged caution, seeing as “Prayer Man” looked more like a woman to me than a man. I also noticed that Buell Frazier claimed he’d been talking to a woman, Sarah Stanton, during the shooting, and that no one had identified Stanton in any of the pictures. So why didn’t the Prayer Man pushers find a picture of Stanton, identify her on the steps, and prove she was not Prayer Man? Because they “knew” Prayer Man was a Man. Well, I dropped out of the discussion at that point, as I will at this point. You can’t argue with religion. And the belief in “Prayer Man” has reached the point where it’s pretty much a religion, IMO.

To add to Stan's point, it’s very odd, to say the least, that Pat Speer should say that. Here’s an extract from a post by the same Pat Speer in the EF on 2nd March 2012:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18830

Pauline Saunders: (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H672) “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 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. (Pat Speer’s highlighting, my underlining)

According to this statement by Pauline Saunders, she was standing at the east end of the entrance and Sarah Stanton was standing next to her. This precludes Sarah Stanton from being Prayer Man as he was standing at the western side of the entrance.

And again of course, there’s Buell Frazier’s response when asked by Gary Mack about PM. If PM was Sarah Stanton or anyone else who worked in the TSBD, there is no reason why he wouldn’t have said so. But we’ve been through all that umpteen times already.

Contrary to what Pat Speer and his fellow deniers claim, it’s gone way past the stage where the onus is on the ‘Prayer Man pushers’ to prove anything. All he and his ilk are doing is trying to muddy the waters.

Stan Dane at September 17, 2015 at 7:50 AM

Vinny at September 17, 2015 at 6:44 AM

From Pat Speer at JFK Facts.

 

You’re not Alan Daly, Alan, and “Prayer Man” is most probably not a man, and almost certainly not Oswald. The operating thesis from the get-go for those claiming “Prayer Man” is Oswald has been that because the blurry figure looks like Oswald, to them, the burden is on others to prove it isn’t Oswald. From the very beginning I urged caution, seeing as “Prayer Man” looked more like a woman to me than a man. I also noticed that Buell Frazier claimed he’d been talking to a woman, Sarah Stanton, during the shooting, and that no one had identified Stanton in any of the pictures. So why didn’t the Prayer Man pushers find a picture of Stanton, identify her on the steps, and prove she was not Prayer Man? Because they “knew” Prayer Man was a Man. Well, I dropped out of the discussion at that point, as I will at this point. You can’t argue with religion. And the belief in “Prayer Man” has reached the point where it’s pretty much a religion, IMO.

According to Gayle Nix Jackson's website, Sarah Stanton is the woman outlined in red in the Wiegman frame. She's not Prayer anything.

 

Thanks for this Stan. I've linked it to Pat's comment on JFKFacts.

Goban Saor at September 17, 2015 at 8:19 AM

Vinny at September 17, 2015 at 6:44 AM

From Pat Speer at JFK Facts.

 

You’re not Alan Daly, Alan, and “Prayer Man” is most probably not a man, and almost certainly not Oswald. The operating thesis from the get-go for those claiming “Prayer Man” is Oswald has been that because the blurry figure looks like Oswald, to them, the burden is on others to prove it isn’t Oswald. From the very beginning I urged caution, seeing as “Prayer Man” looked more like a woman to me than a man. I also noticed that Buell Frazier claimed he’d been talking to a woman, Sarah Stanton, during the shooting, and that no one had identified Stanton in any of the pictures. So why didn’t the Prayer Man pushers find a picture of Stanton, identify her on the steps, and prove she was not Prayer Man? Because they “knew” Prayer Man was a Man. Well, I dropped out of the discussion at that point, as I will at this point. You can’t argue with religion. And the belief in “Prayer Man” has reached the point where it’s pretty much a religion, IMO.

To add to Stan's point, it’s very odd, to say the least, that Pat Speer should say that. Here’s an extract from a post by the same Pat Speer in the EF on 2nd March 2012:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18830

Pauline Saunders: (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H672) “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 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. (Pat Speer’s highlighting, my underlining)

According to this statement by Pauline Saunders, she was standing at the east end of the entrance and Sarah Stanton was standing next to her. This precludes Sarah Stanton from being Prayer Man as he was standing at the western side of the entrance.

And again of course, there’s Buell Frazier’s response when asked by Gary Mack about PM. If PM was Sarah Stanton or anyone else who worked in the TSBD, there is no reason why he wouldn’t have said so. But we’ve been through all that umpteen times already.

Contrary to what Pat Speer and his fellow deniers claim, it’s gone way past the stage where the onus is on the ‘Prayer Man pushers’ to prove anything. All he and his ilk are doing is trying to muddy the waters.

 

He's a knob as well. What separates him a bit from the rest is he is smarter and more subtle.

"smarter and more subtle", perhaps, but if it smells like a turd I assume it is just a POS.

MY MY this thread is turning into a serious piece 

LMAO Stan, book 2 is in the making no doubt hahahahahaha

Terry Martin at September 17, 2015 at 9:11 AM

"smarter and more subtle", perhaps, but if it smells like a turd I assume it is just a POS.

 

 

Anyone who seriously thinks PM is a woman is a fucking kook.

Not to mention a complete knob-head. 

It's going to be a rude awakening for the Stinksters when it dawns on them that PM's arms are crossed. No, he's holding a purse.   Yeah right. The truth is escalating nicely. I can not wait to see Barto's and Stan's further work on this. It will be great I'm sure of that.