Brian Doyle

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Brian Doyle

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

314 profile views
  1. Mr Stancak, you have not answered several key points of evidence. I have adequately explained that Davidson's 2 part gif, that I have displayed below, is an animated image that merges two single Wiegman frames into a series of frames that creates the illusion of a motion picture by means of two single frames. Most people who attempt this level of analysis understand what Davidson's gif is doing just by looking at it. However it is critical that you understand the evidence I am presenting so I will explain it again: What Davidson's gif process is doing is showing two Wiegman frames, one from the very beginning of Wiegman's crossing of the portal, and one from the very end when he panned back to the entrance as he passed. As I already more than adequately explained, in Davidson's gif the 1st image is a 100% pure image of the 1st frame. And the last image is a 100% pure image of the 2nd frame. The Photoshop process that Davidson used then created merged images of those two frames that incrementally blended the two images in order to create a motion picture effect in order to show the shift between them more smoothly. As I already explained, the intermediary frames between the 1st and last frames gradually shift the percentage of merging of the two frames from 100% to 80%-20% to 60%-40% to 50%-50% to 40%-60% to 20%-80% to 100%. This is very easy to understand and a person attempting this level of analysis should be able to understand it if he is qualified to deal at this level. It is not difficult to understand or even see yourself from the Davidson gif that this is what it is doing. It is blending a single frame at the beginning with a single frame at the end in grades of merged images in order to create a motion picture effect between the two single images. I have to protest, because this is an easily understood point of evidence. It is simple to understand and is obviously a correct explanation of Davidson's gif. It is obvious to me that there are many people who understand this evidence who are not chiming-in to confirm it. They are allowing Mr Stancak to evade the point by pretending he doesn't understand simple main evidence. In a correctly moderated debate the person who dodged this evidence would be forced to default if that evidence were sound. That evidence is sound and nobody has proven otherwise. So having explained the Davidson gif again, we can safely determine that the 1st and last frames in that gif, that the gif pauses on, are legitimate images that must be responded to and cannot be avoided like Mr Stancak is being allowed to do. Those images are the best frames available from Wiegman on a technical basis because they are enlarged and clarified, making their content more viewable than any other images. So Mr Stancak is violating the rules of evidence by refusing to respond to the best and more than adequate images available and their obvious content. What he is doing is avoiding responding to what has been more than adequately pointed out in order to call for better images that don't exist. Formal debate moderation should not let him do that. Mr Stancak has avoided responding to what those images more than adequately show and has done so by improperly calling for better images. I have called for arbitration on the lowest dark hair band and now on this. I consider the lack any arbitration on this to be an indirect concession of its merit. Mr Stancak has completely ignored that Davidson's 1st frame undoubtedly shows a Prayer Man who is at a visible depth plane up and behind Lovelady to Lovelady's right. Since Lovelady is on the step in that 1st frame, the width of the steps forces Prayer Man to be on the landing since those steps are too narrow to allow a person to be visibly further back and still be on the step. The portal dimensions and ergonomics force Prayer Man to the landing in that situation. Mr Stancak has completely avoided the more than obvious squaring of Prayer Man's shoulders in both the 1st and last frames. Any credible, honest viewing of the frames I am referencing will show Prayer Man is squared to the front face of the landing in those frames. His shoulder line is parallel with the straight front edge of the landing. This image does adequately show Mr Stancak's claim that Prayer Man is postured on an angle to be incorrect because you can see with your own eyes that Prayer Man is standing with squared shoulders. Mr Stancak therefore refuses to apply his own (correct) written logic above in this thread that if Prayer Man were standing squared to the front on the step the sun plane would make his forearm and shoulder glow. This is a correct observation. And if we look at Prayer Man in my referenced Davidson frames, he is indeed standing with squared shoulders while completely darkened by the shade. Forensic obedience of the very "fixed fiducial points" Mr Stancak references force Prayer Man to be on the landing according to his own descriptions of the evidence. 1) Mr Stancak has refused to acknowledge the lowest of the dark hair bands in Darnell that MacRae, Kamp, and myself can see. 2) Mr Stancak wrongfully claims the clearest and best Wiegman frames (Davidson) are not adequate and calls for better, even though there are no better images. 3) Mr Stancak refuses to address more than adequately described evidence in those Davidson frames. That evidence shows Prayer Man on a visible depth plane up and behind Lovelady as well as Prayer Man having squared shoulders. 4) Mr Stancak makes an issue out of the disparity between 7 and 9 inches height difference between Prayer Man and Frazier without acknowledging that it makes no difference, and if Prayer Man is on the landing either measurement refutes him as being Oswald. 5) Mr Stancak ignores my points on the elongated forehead completely even though it appears to be the best explanation for that evidence. 6) Mr Stancak's claim that the obvious face of a woman on Prayer Man, in Davidson's 2nd frame, is an illusion is not credible and ignores undeniable proven evidence since Davidson publicly declared his metadata and methodology. - You just don't get pareidolia that perfect and perfectly in the right place, along with the visible associated behavior. There's too many forensic hits to deny it so crudely. Arbitration should be applied to judge whether Mr Stancak has fairly recognized evidence and the arguments associated with it. If find the lack of honest admission from other members to be both lacking and telling.
  2. If you view the 2 part Davidson gif in Barry Pollard's 9:34 post in the attached link it refutes Mr Stancak's claim that Prayer Man is standing on the step. Please view the 1st image in the Davidson 2 part gif. In that image Lovelady is on the step. If you observe the spacing on that step there isn't enough room for Prayer Man to also be on the step beside him. Look closely at the image in the 1st frame and you will see Prayer Man is up behind Lovelady's right shoulder in a visibly different depth plane that would require him to be up on the landing. It then follows that since Prayer Man's height never changes in any of the images it therefore proves he is on the landing the whole time and a direct height comparison to Frazier can be made. As Mr Stancak stated here, that direct comparison shows that Prayer Man is at least 7 inches shorter than Frazier, disproving the Oswald as Prayer Man claim. Another thing close examination of the 1st Davidson frame shows is that Prayer Man's shoulders are undoubtedly squared toward the face of the landing. What this means is Mr Stancak's claim that Prayer Man is standing at an angle with one foot on the step is incorrect. I ask those reading this to please read Mr Stancak's own words above where he says: " Should Prayer Man stand with both his feet on the first step, his left shoulder and left forearm would be lit by the sun light. " There's no doubt the 1st Davidson image in question shows Prayer Man squared to the landing. That squaring means he is not angled like Mr Stancak is claiming and would therefore have both feet on the step in that position. Since he is not lit by sunlight on his shoulder and forearm that shows he is up on the landing. Finally, that same juxtaposition of Lovelady and Prayer Man in Davidson's 1st image shows a Lovelady who is 4 inches in height shorter than Prayer Man. If Prayer Man were on the step along with Lovelady the 5 foot 8 Lovelady should only be 1 inch shorter than the alleged 5 foot 9 Oswald. I also believe the elongated forehead that Bart Kamp pointed out is the forehead of a real person who has pulled behind Prayer Man in the 2nd image. I believe it may be the forehead of the person to the right of Lovelady in the 1st image since it is the same height and shape. That man disappears in the 2nd image. I believe he has pulled behind Prayer Man where you can see his forehead rise above Prayer Man's face. This gives an easy explanation for the elongated forehead and disallows it as an excuse to discount the clear image of a woman's face in the same frame. Kamp had claimed the elongated forehead was a photo artifact, therefore proving that the woman's face was also a photo artifact. However Unger proved the elongated forehead was in the original Wiegman film frame. Since the film process is a simple chemical reaction to light on celluloid, it doesn't make artifacts that big and requires explanation. That explanation is Wiegman's film captured a real forehead that was behind Prayer Man and it can't be used to dismiss the woman's face seen in that same Davidson image.,13747.40.html
  3. If you view Davidson's gif below it shows a frame from the very beginning of the Wiegman Film interspersed with a frame from the very end. Davidson's technology offers 100% of the 1st frame in the 1st image and then blends the two for several frames before offering 100% of the 2nd frame in the last image. This creates an artificial motion picture effect from only 2 images. The reason you can see the face of a woman in the 2nd frame is because Wiegman has pulled much closer to the portal and therefore gets a better clearer shot. Bart Kamp showed the elongated forehead in the 2nd image and claimed it was an artifact. Kamp suggested that since the elongated forehead on top of the woman face was an artifact that therefore the entire image was an artifact and therefore invalidated the woman's face. However on closer examination I discovered that the man to Lovelady's right in the 1st frame disappears in the 2nd frame. If you examine the shape and height of that man's forehead in the 1st frame it matches the shape and height of the elongated forehead. In short, the elongated forehead is the forehead of that man who disappears and ends up standing behind Prayer Man. Celluloid film does not make artifacts that big because it is a basic chemical reaction to light on a film surface that captures what is there and is a medium that isn't easy to create quirks that large on without explanation. ROKC tends to use the artifact claim for things it has trouble answering. They were never made to answer their artifact claim for the elongated forehead at a technical level. Meanwhile the elongated forehead has a simple explanation if you just look at the forehead of the man who disappears from the 1st frame and compare it to the elongated forehead in the 2nd frame. Once you refute ROKC's artifact claim it follows simple logic that their one excuse to deny the obvious face of a woman in Davidson is removed. That means they have to account for what that obvious face is. Since the elongated forehead now has a simple explanation that means the incorrect artifact excuse they based on it is not longer good enough to deny Davidson: The Davidson GIF is in Barry Pollard's 9:34 post at this link:,13747.40.html
  4. I asked Mr Kamp to answer my response to his last post, he did not. 1) I asked you first Mr Stancak. I asked you to please identify what you consider to be Prayer Man's hair as shown in Kamp's posted Darnell image. You did not do so and responded by asking me to do computer image outlining that you yourself showed an unwillingness to do. It is my opinion that you are refusing to do so because of your awareness that any attempt you make at outlining what you consider to be hair on Prayer Man will prove my point. Your move here relieves you of having to account for what your own ROKC teammate saw so clearly that he was able to draw arrows to it. 2) It is not true that I am the only one who can see it. Duncan MacRae drew a fairly adequate outline of the woman's hair seen in Darnell. He did so by following the dark mass I am pointing out that was clear enough for him to draw an outline around. There are many others who admit it looks like a woman. Yourself included in this thread. A woman would possess the long hair I am pointing out. Wrong. The Davidson 2 part gif I will post separately shows Prayer Man with 'his' shoulders in line parallel to the front face of the landing. For Prayer Man to have one foot on the step and one on the landing is not a position any human would hold for too long. Human behavior would make that individual step down completely on to the step and not leave one foot up on the landing while going through all the motions Prayer Man's arms are doing. It is important to note that Prayer Man's height never changes in all available images. Second, you never answered my height argument. It proves Prayer Man can't be Oswald by your own example. If we hypothetically allow Prayer Man to be standing with one foot on the step we can draw a line from the top of Prayer Man's head over to Frazier and he comes up to about Frazier's chin (7 inches shorter than the top of Frazier's head). Since we know the Depository steps are 7 inches tall that would mean when Prayer Man stepped up to the landing he would be equal in height with the 6 foot tall Frazier - as a person who was 7 inches shorter would do if he rose up one 7 inch step. Since Oswald was 5 foot 9, and could never be equal in height with Frazier, this scientifically proves Prayer Man cannot be Oswald by itself. In the Gilbride posts we showed that Darnell's camera is at an approximate 20 degree angle or so to the portal. You still fail to grasp the basic point that your claim that Prayer Man is standing on the step commits him to a specific spot that is well forward on the landing (to the point of being on the step). Gilbride already posted that Prayer Man's head is in line with the aluminum frame. When you make a geometric triangulation of Prayer Man's position in the portal according to those landmarks he turns out to be too far from the wall to be leaning with folded arms. He would also have to be intersecting the sun plane at that position. Since he is not that proves that Prayer Man was always on the landing since his height doesn't change. Once you prove Prayer Man was on the landing then a direct height comparison with Frazier makes him well too short to be Oswald. Mr Stancak, please answer what I have written in your next response. If Prayer Man had rotated to allow people coming up the steps to get by it would be entirely unnatural for him to not step back into the open space behind him on the landing to facilitate it. You are just defying human behavior to suggest that Prayer Man was standing in the unnatural position of having one foot on the step and one on the landing this whole time. Furthermore, Gilbride already posted the graphic showing how Prayer Man would have to have grotesquely long shins to have any foot on the step according to the body proportions that are visible. In Wiegman it is quite clear that Prayer Man would not be looking in to a purse or operating a camera with one foot on the step. You people are forgetting you were the ones arguing that Prayer Man was back in the rear corner of the portal. Your alleged one foot down claim only puts Prayer Man all the way forward and in to the sun plane that is making his hand glow. If we can find Gilbride's draft illustration he took a protractor and drew out the radiuses of the distances from Darnell's camera to both Frazier and Prayer Man. You don't seem to realize Mr Stancak, your claim that Prayer Man had one foot on the step commits him to being well forward on the landing. When you correctly scientifically map both Frazier's and Prayer Man's locations accordingly it means Frazier was anywhere from directly in the same radius line from Darnell's camera as Prayer Man to only a foot or so maximum separation. Drew Phipps did the trigonometry for this over on Deep Politics and proved that the most height difference perspective shift could cause would be negligible. Something like 1/3rd of an inch at the most for the full 4 foot width of the landing. Since Prayer Man only had about a foot of depth separation max from Frazier that would mean there could only be a 1/12th of an inch maximum perspective shift. When you apply that 1/12th of an inch to the visible height difference in Darnell it is negligible and cannot be used to avoid the interpretation of the heights we can determine in the portal. You have to take responsibility for your chess pieces Mr Stancak. You can make that one step down move but you have to account for what it entails according to the rules of the game. Your one step down claim places Prayer Man at a radius from Darnell's camera where you cannot use perspective shift as an excuse for the obvious height difference. Simply refuted by looking at MacRae's stabilized animation of Prayer Man in the portal. Is it still posted on the Education Forum? After seeing the movements Prayer Man is making it would be impossible to have one leg down on the step and bent. MacRae's animation showed a person who was standing flat-footed with both feet on the landing. I'm sorry Mr Stancak but you show a lack of skill in analysis because even if your bent leg theory were true if Prayer Man were standing with a bent leg on a step that was 7 inches lower than the landing when he straightened that leg out and rose to the landing he would then be even taller than Frazier only proving my point even more. You're not answering the point of the 7 inch step. Please answer it. If what you are saying is true then when Prayer Man rose to the landing he would add the height of the 7 inch step and therefore be too tall to be Oswald. Do you understand this basic point? Credible analysis would realize that Prayer Man's hand is glowing in Wiegman because it is on the edge of the sun plane. If you observe Darnell carefully you can see Prayer Man's hand is not glowing (though it is brighter because of sun exposure). What that means is Prayer Man has pulled back from the sun plane, just like Mr Stancak surmises when he says Prayer Man was making way for people coming up the stairs. The only place for Prayer Man to pull back from the sun plane is the landing according to Mr Stancak's own description. Once you establish Prayer Man is on the landing in Wiegman, and realize his height never changes in all images, it proves Prayer Man is standing on the landing in all images. Again Mr Stancak, if you consult experts you will find they will confirm that black and white images contain spectral frequencies and data. Black and white are technically colors. I consider your above reply a deliberate oversimplification designed to avoid my arguments that the color tones in the lowest dark band on Prayer Man's hair and the top of his head, where we know there is hair, match because they are part of a visible cohesive mass. They will also match Frazier's hair that we know is hair. Your 'cursor' argument is a gross oversimplification designed to get around the high tech spectral color analysis an expert would apply to the image and narrow down the range of possibilities for what it is. That expert would quickly agree that the dark band you are saying you don't see (even though Kamp drew arrows to it) is part of one cohesive mass that constitutes hair and is proven so not only by the naked eye but by color frequency matching as well. There's also a point I'd like to make. On ROKC a poster named 'JFK Student' posted a sepia image where he claims he can see a white sleeve going to Prayer Man's wrist. ROKC complimented him and gave him credit etc. However none of them either noticed or pointed out that Oswald couldn't have a long white sleeve going to his wrist according to his known clothing. Also a poster named Jake has posted a drawing repeating the folded arms and leaning against the wall claim. Jake also received automatic compliments etc but no one pointed out to him that his image diametrically conflicts with Stancak's one foot on the step claim. None of them pointed out that MacRae's animated film clip shows a person whose hands are moving separately and cannot be folded, or that the close time separation between Darnell and Wiegman precludes Prayer Man shifting from handling something to leaning against the wall. In fact, anyone with good analysis skills would realize Prayer Man can't be handling a camera and then be folding his arms in such a short time period. The obvious handling of something with both hands seen in Duncan's animation led Kamp to proclaim on ROKC "I see now that Prayer Man is manipulating something with both hands". Jake's drawing shows Prayer Man's elbow reflected in the plate glass. However he failed to notice that Prayer Man's equally exposed left cheek, that should have made a similar reflection, made no reflection at all. That's because there is no reflection of Prayer Man's left elbow in the glass. What you are seeing there in Darnell is Prayer Man's left hand grasping the purse. I would like to point out that the people who are pretending they are strict critics of content are the same people who allowed these fatal conflicts from their own side. (Duncan has mis-drawn the purse below. It actually comes out under Prayer Man's right wrist)
  5. Mr Stancak, I ask that you please stick to the evidence and avoid personal comments. It is not true that I am pointing to something others can't see. Mr Kamp was able to see what I am talking about because he drew arrows to it. So it is not true that the evidence I am talking about is a "dubious detail" as you call it. Kamp already showed that he could see the light colored band and drew an arrow to it. If he can see the light colored bands then he can see the dark colored bands that border them. We need an arbitration here because the opposition is pretending we haven't established what is hair on Frazier and Prayer Man. I would ask Mr Stancak to stop the dramatic wording and please point out what he considers to be hair on both Frazier and Prayer Man. This debate cannot proceed unless a basic level of honest admission of established facts is had. Both Mr Stancak and Kamp have completely avoided recognizing or discussing the hair on Prayer Man and Frazier's heads. It is necessary to do in order to discuss the evidence. It's my opinion that they are avoiding it because they know what it shows. I find it hard to believe that Mr Stancak cannot see the black band right beneath the lighter colored band Mr Kamp has pointed two large red arrows toward. Mr Stancak, my arguments were quite clearly spelled out and should be understandable by anyone of average intelligence. I made clear arguments comparing critical features seen in Darnell, like Frazier's ear and short hair compared to Prayer Man. I notice that neither you or Bart Kamp answered any of those arguments directly. Especially the spectral color comparison that does have scientific merit despite your avoidance of it. I'd like for you to give a direct answer to Kamp's camera blur claim via my response. Prayer Man's ear cannot be blurred in a streak like Kamp is claiming because Frazier's would be too. What we see on Frazier is an unblurred ear. What that means is Prayer Man's ear is also not blurred. Kamp is probably mistaking a linear artifact for camera blur. In any case camera blur does not answer the spectral analysis argument. I have seen your one leg down claim for Prayer Man's height difference. Do you realize you are referring to evidence that you have fabricated by means of computer graphics? It is unsubmittable because it is only based on your creation of an image. When you entered it last time you backed off to the statement "I am not showing things that existed. I am only showing things that may have existed". Meanwhile on this site MacRae showed an animated film clip of Prayer Man in the portal showing Prayer Man's stabilized movements in all films. Those movements showed a person who was not standing with one leg down on the step because of their squared shoulders. Additionally, if you compare Prayer Man's height in Davidson's Wiegman image it shows a person who is not standing with one leg down on the step. Since Prayer Man's height doesn't change in all images, we can assume 'he' wasn't standing in any unnatural and uncomfortable one step down position. You are forgetting we already showed Prayer Man can't be one step down because of a comparison to Lovelady's height. Ultimately, if you view your offering it is an indirect admission that, indeed, if Prayer Man is standing on the landing then he is too short to be Oswald. Finally, your one step down claim is unscientific because, if Prayer Man was standing 7 inches lower than Frazier on the 7 inch step, then, when he rose up to the landing, he would be equal to Frazier and therefore not be Oswald. Either way it excludes Prayer Man from being the 5 foot 9 Oswald. We already refuted the one step down claim months ago when Gilbride posted my proof that, by body proportion, Prayer Man's legs would have to be too long in relation to the rest of his body to be on the first step down. Mr Stancak you are just re-posting material that was refuted long ago. I see your one step down claim as a contrivance forced by good evidence. I'd like for you to please answer my arguments for the spectral color tones of Prayer Man's hair, and how they prove long hair, as well as Frazier's short hair and ear. Also I'd like for you to answer my arguments concerning Oswald's mugshot in comparison to Prayer Man. So far you haven't.
  6. Again Mr Kamp, you are not answering credible evidence I have posted. I assume your assertion that the evidence I'm pointing out is too small is referring to the lowest of the black bands in Prayer Man's hair. I have to assume because your answers are so vague that they don't specifically describe what you are referring to. It's not too small because anyone can see it and you used the lighter band of the exact same size above it to make your invalid "blurred ear" argument. So you had no problem with its size in regard to evidence when you used it. Any objective person can look at Darnell and see both the dark band and Frazier's ear are not too small to make the arguments I do with them. You proved so yourself when you made your invalid blurred ear argument using the same item and even pointed it out with arrows. This is twice now that you have avoided addressing the spectral analysis argument for the hair on Prayer Man's head. I have argued correctly, using valid, visible examples in the Darnell image, that the dark areas can be confirmed at a color spectrum level to be the same. Since we know the dark area at the top of Prayer Man's head is hair then the dark area beneath the ear that matches it at a spectral level would also have to be hair. Even the naked eye can see this. Mr Kamp, you try to represent yourself as offering the best photo science. These spectral analyses are that science and require an adequate answer when shown. So far you have not given any. In Darnell you will have 3 objects that match on a spectral color tone basis. One will be the top of Prayer Man's head where we know there is hair. The second will be the lowest dark band on Prayer Man's head. And the third will be Frazier's hair. The arguments why these three samples will prove Prayer Man has long hair were already made in my last post. Your camera blur argument has been refuted. If you look at Frazier's ear it has no such elongated blurring. Since film images have to blur uniformly throughout, the long light colored band you pointed to on Prayer Man's head cannot be a camera-blurred ear. It is likely a linear artifact or intervals of sunlight reflecting in wavy hair. Even better the ear you refer to on Prayer Man is almost certainly covered under long hair. Something one look at Oswald's mugshot would show to be impossible. This photographic evidence makes clear that Prayer Man has long hair and that if it was Oswald it would be impossible for him to appear as he does in Darnell. My case is based on sound arguments of evidence and possesses a quality of analysis that deserves equal response. The way photo science works is once you show that Frazier's ear is unblurred it unavoidably requires that Prayer Man's ear would also have to be unblurred. Since blurring is the aberration, and Frazier's ear is unblurred, that means his normal ear is the going standard and proves ALL ears would have to be unblurred. Mr Kamp's blurring claim is refuted by this alone. So one look at Oswald's mugshot makes it clear that his prominent ear would have to show up in Darnell like Frazier's did. Mr Kamp ignored the fact that Prayer Man's standing at a 30 degree angle in Darnell means his hair strip on the back of the neck argument is moot since you can't see it at that angle. Nor does he answer why we can't see Oswald's ear. The 30 degree angle point was ignored by Mr Kamp and his same refuted claim was re-entered. If Prayer Man were Oswald you would see what you see in the mugshot - which is white neck skin from front to back with a prominent ear. The real questions that need to be answered here are: Why does Frazier show short hair, an obvious ear, and the white skin of his neck from front to back in Darnell? If Oswald had a similar haircut why doesn't he appear similarly? Since we can see the difference between Prayer Man and Frazier clearly in Darnell, why does Prayer Man have a noticeably different appearance showing dark hair where Frazier has light skin? Also: Kamp made no attempt to answer the height argument that was backed by trigonometry on Deep Politics and by drafted illustrations by Gilbride here. Frazier is clearly 6 to 7 inches taller than Prayer Man in this photo, which would be impossible for the 5 foot 9 Oswald. The definition of evidence is that which the opposition cannot answer or refute. I assure you as soon as any photo analysis expert gets hold of Darnell he will confirm everything I've written here. In fact Davidson should be encouraged to process Darnell in his Photoshop tool to see if he can improve the image like he did with Wiegman. Mr Kamp doesn't seem to realize that the way evidence works is any "small part" that shows irrefutable evidence disproves any larger body of evidence that doesn't better it. It's the "little bit pregnant" rule he doesn't seem to fathom.
  7. What Mr Kamp is not addressing is, at a scientific level that is beyond the naked eye level we are dealing at here, Prayer Man's bottom dark band of hair can be analyzed on a spectral basis to match it to the hair on the top of his head. I can see it with my naked eye, but spectral analysis will prove that the color tones match on a scientific basis. You also have a 3rd source for spectral color tone matching. Frazier's hair can also be matched at a spectral level to show it is similar to Prayer Man's hair. This shows, at a scientific level, that the dark areas seen on both Prayer Man and Frazier's heads are hair. This will conclusively prove that the dark band seen beneath Prayer Man's ear is also hair. This automatically refutes Prayer Man being Oswald since Oswald's short hair can be seen in his mugshot and it doesn't go below his ear, no matter how many false comparisons are shown. Mr Kamp has answered my discussion of the hair evidence by means of an irrelevant camera blurring discussion. What he is doing is pointing to the lighter band on Prayer Man's head with his two red arrows and saying it is the long blur of Prayer Man's ear. There are reasons why that isn't so. Right above Kamp's alleged blurred ear is another light colored band. The light colored band above what Kamp is calling the blurred ear can't be a second ear, so what is it? It is either wavy hair reflecting sunlight at intervals or it is a linear photo artifact that is seen elsewhere in the photo. If it is a linear artifact it doesn't disprove the hair that we know is there because the person in question had hair. So either way it is either a linear artifact going through woman's long wavy hair or intervals of sunlight reflecting off the waves of woman's long hair. Also: I'm pretty sure there is no ear on Prayer Man because it is covered by long hair. Mr Kamp has placed his arrows at the lower of the two light colored bands. He should have placed those arrows one band lower on the lowest of the 3 dark colored bands. That lowest band is more meaningful evidence wise. His failure to outline the most meaningful evidence only exhibits how he is not answering what is being argued. Not only is Mr Kamp's description of his highlighted band incorrect but it also fails to address the more pertinent evidence. Once Spectral analysis is done on the hair on the top of Prayer Man's head, along with that lowest band, it will show they both match. And if the area we know is hair on the top of Prayer Man's head matches the dark blotch under 'his' ear then we know it's hair. Mr Kamp has failed to discuss this and his ear blurring entry is not relevant. The image of Frazier above is very important because it shows what a person who we know had a short haircut similar to Oswald would look like in Darnell. Not only can we see the clear outline of Frazier's hair but we can also see the light colored area where his ear is located. Frazier also represents another source internal to Darnell's image for spectral hair properties. Additionally, Frazier is important because we can see his ear and also see there is no blurring. Kamp suggests camera motion blur, but, scientifically, a camera cannot blur in one part of the image and not in another. Any camera motion blur would be distributed throughout the whole image. Go to Frazier's ear and we see no such lengthy blurring. What this tells you is the long lighter colored band on Prayer Man that Kamp highlights with red arrows is not camera blur. It shows that it is either an artifact or sunlight reflection, however it does not refute the obvious large uniform mass of woman's hair we are seeing. Having dismissed Mr Kamp's claim we can now return to the pertinent evidence of the lowest hair band that he did not address. If you view Mr Kamp's response he ignored my point that Prayer Man is facing about 30 degrees or so towards the camera. Oswald's mugshot also has a similar angle. The small strip of hair Mr Kamp showed in his images is not visible in Darnell because of this angle. Mr Kamp is offering both invalid and irrelevant evidence and is not answering the science I am showing. He has not answered the fact that, at the angle seen in Darnell, and the mugshot, Oswald's neck would appear as white from front to back. This is a color field of enough size and resolution that it would be impossible for the image to show the dark band we see going more than 50% across Prayer Man's neck in Darnell. It is a color field that appears on Frazier, in full view, as a direct comparison, and shows his neck to be completely white from front to back. Finally, the Darnell image above shows Frazier to be about 6-7 inches taller than Prayer Man. Frazier was just over 6 foot. Oswald was 5 foot 9. On Deep Politics Drew Phipps did the trigonometry to show that at the distance of Darnell's camera the most Prayer Man could differ from Frazier in height, due to perspective shift, is about 1/3rd of an inch. The obvious 6-7 inch height difference between Prayer Man and Frazier in Darnell excludes Oswald from being Prayer Man, and the 1/3rd inch perspective shift maximum disallows any perspective excuses for this obvious height difference. Richard Gilbride added some good illustrated drafts of these height measurements. He was ignored and I haven't seen him since.
  8. I apologize to Gordon and Beckett. I shouldn't have said that and I retract it. I will refrain from mentioning the content of the ROKC board since that would only be inflammatory and irrelevant. I did ask that this be kept scientific so I will say Mr Kamp has answered none of what I pointed out on a scientific basis. It is not true that I possess no analytical skills. What I have presented does make a credible case that Prayer Man is a woman for the reasons listed. On that same strict scientific basis, camera blur is not a valid issue according to what is being discussed. I clearly detailed that my observations were based on the available image values that were present at the resolution, or even degree of camera blurring, that was present in Darnell. The issue of camera blurring is specious because it does not answer the valid points I raised about the color values that are available in the Darnell image as shown. Any alleged camera blurring cannot be scientifically used to avoid answering what is shown by the "value fields" indicated in Darnell. Those values are of good enough resolution and clarity to credibly indicate what I am showing. If you look at Mr Kamp's offerings he shows images of Oswald that show maybe 2% of the very back of his neck covered by a thin strip of hair. What that means is 98% of his neck isn't covered and is white. On a technical basis that thin 2% strip of hair would not affect the color tones and value fields I have pointed-out in Darnell. Nor would it account for the 50% coverage of the neck you see on Prayer Man. Also: Kamp's offering is not scientifically sound because Prayer Man is standing at about 30 degrees off perpendicular, so the back of his neck where that tiny 2% strip is would not show in Darnell just like it doesn't show in the mugshot. I protest Mr Kamp calling the buttons pointed out by MacRae "imaginary". They will be confirmed as soon as any photo analysis expert gets hold of Darnell. I have previously shown that they can't be the claimed "pixel quirks" some are calling them because pixel quirks are random and would not show up in perfect order on the clothing exactly where buttons would be. I proved this by showing that the buttons continued along the opening seam of the garment up to the collar, as buttons that are located on one side of a garment's opening would do. This is forensic confirmation that takes the buttons beyond the range of possibility for pixel quirks, that would appear randomly in a photo and not behave so predictably. When objects behave in a photo exactly as buttons would they are buttons. Any look at those buttons shows they can't be Oswald's because they are too low on the garment and there are too many. I thank Mr Kamp for his better image of Darnell because it shows what I am talking about even more clearly. It has the benefit of showing the hair on Frazier. On a basic forensic science level we know Frazier had dark hair on his head. If we go to Frazier in Kamp's image we can see how Darnell's film represents his hair as far as color tones. There's no doubt we can go to Frazier's image in Kamp's frame and see what Darnell's film defines as hair. OK, now go to Prayer Man and you can see Darnell's film identifies Prayer Man's hair with the exact same blackish color as what we know is hair on Frazier. There's no doubt Prayer Woman's hair is a large mass of wavy hair that goes below the ear. You can see it in that lowest black band. Even better, Mr Kamp's Darnell image shows a visible ear on Frazier. A good comparison of what you would also see on Prayer Man if it was Oswald. Just look at the mugshot. As I mentioned in my previous post, a photo expert will take a measurement of the precise color tone of that last dark band below Prayer Woman's ear and compare it to the color tone of the hair on the top of Prayer Woman's head. This scientific color measurement will confirm that both areas are the same color and therefore are the same substance - hair. Mr Kamp ignored my color measurement point. It is scientific and cannot be ignored. By the way, that same expert will confirm Frazier's dark hair is also the same color. Discussions of blurred images are specious and have nothing to do with what we are talking about since my arguments were based on a sharp, unblurred mugshot and a more than adequate image from Darnell. Also: Drew Phipps on the Deep Politics board isolated a bright jutting protrusion on Prayer Man's brow in the above Darnell image that corresponds to an eyeglass frame. Those same eyeglasses were revealed in Davidson's enhancement of Wiegman that will also be confirmed by a photo expert. You have two sources showing eyeglasses there. Oswald did not wear eyeglasses. Frazier should be shown Davidson's woman's face as soon as possible. Davidson should be asked if he will please try to run Darnell through his Photoshop process.
  9. The value fields in the attached Darnell image are of good enough resolution that the white skin shown on Oswald's neck and face would show up if they were present. Instead we see the blackish color tones of a mass covering Prayer Woman's head in the shape of long hair. Particularly the blackish color tone in a blotch below the ear. Go below the ear in Oswald's mug shot and you see the white skin of his neck. The color values that are apparent in Darnell show that his film did have enough capacity to capture skin tones. You can see this in the skin tones seen on Prayer Man's face and breast. If you go to the area below the ear in Darnell's image you can see dark color tones that are identical to the dark tones seen on the top of Prayer Man's head where we know there was hair. This is good enough photographic evidence that if Prayer Man were Oswald then that area below the ear would be white. The Darnell image clearly shows a below the ear area that possesses long hair. It is important that people keep strictly scientific about this. At the most scientific forensic level a photo analyst would see that Prayer Man has an identifiable black colored area on his head in Darnell. This is very definitely hair because we know that most people have hair on their head and at minimum Oswald would have had hair on his head. So at a strict scientific level there is a dark colored mass on Prayer Man's head that conforms to hair in Darnell. It then makes forensic sense that if the dark tone at the top of Prayer Man's head is hair then the identical blackish colored tone down below the ear is also hair. Again, paying strict attention to science, a photo analyst will take technical measurements of the precise color tone of the blackish area at the top of the head as well as the blackish area below the ear and confirm they match. It is very simple forensic logic from there that once you know the dark area at the top of the head is hair then the area beneath the ear that matches it is also hair. And since Oswald didn't have long hair that proves it wasn't him. That same expert will confirm that the blackish mass also possesses a uniform shape that resembles woman's long hair. This provides two sources that show the Darnell image does not match features of Lee Harvey Oswald that would have shown up at this resolution. The first source is internal color tone matching in Darnell for the dark area below the ear with the dark area on top of the head where we know there is hair. The second source is comparing Oswald's white skin on his neck with the same area on Prayer Man in Darnell. In the mugshot the white skin goes all the way to the back of the neck. In Darnell there is a dark blotch. That blotch is hair. If Oswald were Prayer Man the white skin of his neck should have been apparent. And his ear too.
  10. If you obey the rules of forensic law, Wheel Barrow Man is too small to be real because the dimensions of the portal disallow it. We also know there can't be any man with a wheel barrow in the portal. What this does is show a case of real pareidolia, and the reasoning for it, vs a real image, since Prayer Woman's face is of correct proportion and placement for a real face, unlike Wheel Barrow Man. In effect the strongest statement made by the Wheel Barrow Man image is a case of real pareidolia and how it differs from the woman's face.
  11. Andrej: In your effort to disprove Prayer Woman you unwittingly proved her because you repeated Duncan's finding using a different method. In science that is known as verification. In court two witnesses are usually the standard for evidence and you just produced a second witness by reproducing Duncan's woman's face exactly where it was in Davidson while using a different photo tool. What that means is the woman's face is part of the original Davidson used for his gif. Your claim that the face is pareidolia is disproven because pareidolia is usually not scientifically repeatable. Apparently those who back the Murphy theory have no problem with Andrej presenting the clear face of a woman as a neck and allow it while siding with him and finding in his favor. My personal opinion is that this brings down the credibility of the site and works directly against the purpose of encouraging the best research and information. I see ROKC has defaulted on this.
  12. You'll see the evidence for double exposure if Davidson posts it. The elongated forehead seen in Duncan's image is clearly the forehead in the first image that stays in place as Prayer Woman moves downward in the ensuing images. Plus Duncan's face is obviously the main contiguous face in that frame, so the extra forehead above it has to be something since it is anatomically impossible for it to be part of Duncan's face. Duncan's woman's face is the same size as Lovelady's right next to it as well as Roy Lewis's and Madie Reese's. You have 3 matches right there in front of you confirming it is the same size as the others yet you say it is not. Hmm. Wrong. Chris's face is from a much earlier frame and Prayer Woman has moved downward, as Davidson's full clip will show. Duncan's face is right where it should be according to that downward movement and what Andrej is calling a neck is actually Duncan's woman's face. The face is right where it would be if a woman was peering into her purse. Low and behold the eyes are visibly looking at the same angle as looking into the purse in front of her. Sorry guys but you are violating your own facial posture for either drinking or aiming a camera. No Sandy. As I have repeatedly explained, we are only talking about Duncan's image. Sorry, but you don't seem to grasp the terms of what is being referenced and argued here. Your statement also makes no sense according to evidentiary logic. We're not talking about Chris's original face that you keep insisting to bring into the discussion even though it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Duncan's woman's face is more clear because it came from a sharp frame. Sandy, Andrej's yellow outline face is distorted because it is an imaginary face derived from photo artifacts Andrej produced with his photo process. Look closely at his lower right frame and you will see what Andrej is calling eyes is a black distortion line or artifact caused by his process. In other words it doesn't exist. It is an illusion and is a good example of real pareidolia. Meanwhile, Duncan's woman's face, that Andrej doesn't show, is a much clearer and anatomically-conforming image with perfect symmetry between facial features and visible eyeglass frames because it is the real image of a real face. The reason for that is the woman's face came from a sharp steady frame.
  13. 1) No Andrej. Your response makes no effort to acknowledge that you can't concoct your own image using totally different methods and then use it to claim it refutes Davidson. It doesn't. You can't get around the fact it violates your own demand to use original sources. There's no use in repeating the elongated forehead claim because it will prove to not be of merit. Don't you realize that by saying the red outline is a reflection that you dismiss it from consideration as a real face? (and therefore prove why our face is real). You are extremely foolish because Duncan's woman's face is right next to it, so its reflecting an imaginary pareidolia face is very unlikely to the point of impossibility. Imaginary images don't create reflections. Also, a more adept analyzer would realize the fact that you used an alternative tool but still reproduced Duncan's face in the same spot is proof of its veracity. Why? Because you were accusing the woman's face of being an imaginary image created by Davidson's process. The fact you used a different process yet still repeated that same face in the exact same spot proves it is part of the original image and not a pareidolia product of Davidson's Photoshop process. This is an evidentiary checkmate and I thank you for providing it. Your logic requires that the place on the body where a real face should be is occupied not by a real face but by an imaginary one instead. And that a false image created by Davidson's Photoshop process was also repeated exactly by your completely independent separate process. 2) The cause of the double exposure is secondary to its existence and subsequent meaning. The frame by frame breakdown will show it to be a quirk of the gif process and irrelevant to the isolated woman's face that solely exists in the sharp frame. Saying double exposures would be all over the photo is an invalid argument. 3) Nonsense. The film had enough resolution to show the woman's face. Your so-called face was clearly invented from distortion lines created by your photo process that was deliberately designed to offer a less clear image than Davidson's for deceptive purposes. The bottom line is your process is equally distributed throughout your resulting image and unequivocally shows both a disproportionate face as well as one with symmetry. You chose the disproportionate one as accurate and have no excuse for doing so. Your yellow outline shows a face that is worse than "noisy", it is clearly invented out of distortion artifacts. Davidson's clear woman's face from his image shows a face that is what you would see resolve from the available original image with Photoshop contrast improvements applied. 4) Even if true, the obscure oval eye would be Prayer Woman's eye in the double exposure. You can't argue that the much clearer and more visible eyes are those in Duncan's image (including the visible eyeglass frames). Also, there is a visible distortion line passing through eye level in your yellow outline that makes that alleged faint eye obscured and creates a straight unbroken linear artifact across that feature. You are presenting what is clearly a double exposure with a distortion artifact as the main face when the blue outline face does not possess those features and does not possess those features because it is a clear product of the sharp frame and independent of your deliberately obscuring features. 5) You are trying to blame your failures on "noise" (distortion) that doesn't exist. The nose and mouth on the blue outline are much more apparent than your laughable nose and mouth on your imaginary yellow outline face. When called on it you try the wholly dishonest tactic of hiding behind noise when we are talking about clearly visible features. So you call the true nose and mouth, that are plainly visible, noise, and call the real noise the better face. No. 6) It does, for the reasons explained, and will disprove most of what you contend. 7) Foolish. The "sharper" frame IS the original frame. It also differs from the less sharp images you invalidly offer for comparison. You are only proving my point for me. You failed to accurately present Davidson's original sharp frame as it was presented by himself and therefore failed your own demands for original evidence.
  14. You're not answering the better arguments here Andrej. 1) You can't generate your own independent image with more distortion than Davidson's and claim it disproves Davidson's. You are violating your own repeated demands for original evidence. 2) My explanation of the double exposure is not "trivial" as you describe it. It is critical to undoing ROKC's attempt to undermine good evidence with false claims. I'm not sure what your purpose is in ignoring my repeated instruction that Davidson's frame by frame breakdown will show that the elongated forehead clearly originates from the forehead in the first frame carrying over to the ensuing frames as a double exposure. You are crediting a double exposure as being a real face. 3) Your purpose here is clearly evasive because you refuse to answer how your yellow outline shows a face with disproportionate features while the blue outline shows a much more comprehensive face with symmetrical features, yet you claim the opposite. 4) You ignore the fact that you have violated science by drawing two distinct eyes around a feature that is clearly an unbroken distortion line created by your photo process. 5) You don't answer how what you call a "neck", that you claim Duncan and I are inappropriately placing eyes on (eyes that clearly conform to two round separate eyes, unlike your offering), possesses a nose and mouth that Graves called "Mary Tyler Moore"-like. Sorry Andrej, but a neck doesn't have a nose and mouth. 6) If Davidson posts his frame by frame breakdown it will show an extra dimension of movement that backs what I am claiming. 7) You are trying to seize the narrative with your own deficient offering, however you haven't credibly answered how the sharper frame is responsible for the clear woman's face that appears in that frame. That's a forensic pathology that matches what is seen that you haven't disproven.
  15. Andrej is doing it again. When MacRae offered his first image with the buttons Andrej went and created his own distorted image and then used that parallel unrelated image to criticize MacRae's. I find it amusing that people automatically chime-in and credit Andrej for this when commonly accepted rules of analysis, the same ones they are always forcing, would automatically throw his entire case of evidence out. I saw this coming yesterday when I said "The best way to analyze Davidson's methodology is to examine his material directly". Andrej has failed to do that. What he has done is use a different photo contrast format and tool to create a deliberately-distorted image and then invalidly claim that is what Davidson did. And this room is supposed to exemplify a high standard of rigor. It is amazing that persons who are supposed to live up to the "collegial" standards of this board, as far as scientific rigor, would allow Andrej to point to obvious linear distortion in his own image and then claim that distortion contributed to the confusion in Davidson's image over a woman's face. Andrej doesn't stop to think that the distortion in his image isn't in Davidson's and therefore he has no right to compare examples that are scientifically irrelevant. Once again Andrej is getting board approval for invalid science and is referring to his own image instead of Davidson's. I'm glad he's satisfied with his little experiment, but it's a complete waste of time and misleading. We have no clue if Andrej tweaked his contrast tool in order to produce that distortion (which doesn't exist in Davidson's much clearer image). The rule holds true that blurry images produce blurry arguments and clear ones clear arguments. Again, the board allows Andrej to come in and show the obvious large dominating real face (blue outline) but then draw lines around a grotesque distortion in the elongated forehead (yellow outline) and claim that is the real face. If you examine what Andrej is calling the real face (yellow outline), it is a laughable image that has a flat black distortion line for eyes. Andrej of course ignores this and draws two eyes where this ridiculous linear black bar is, with everyone accepting it without challenge. If you notice, none of Andrej's automatic approvers bothers to note that of the two faces, Andrej has chosen the obviously preposterous grotesque face that is the obvious forced imaginary face that it is. He has also drawn two eyes around a flat black bar where there are no such eyes. In my mind the readers are being taken advantage of here. If we could isolate the two faces and compare them we would see Duncan's woman's face (as shown in Davidson's clearer version) is the obvious symmetrical real face and Andrej's pick is ridiculous. If anything Andrej's attempt is a reinforcement of what I am saying and is, once again, more proof of real pareidolia vs a real face than anything. Andrej accuses Duncan and I of combining "dark spots" and Prayer Man's neck. None of the automatic approvers bother to notice that "Prayer Man's" neck also possesses a symmetrical nose and mouth (something Andrej's yellow outline doesn't possess). This is the advantage Andrej intentionally exploits by using his own deliberately distorted self-created image instead of Davidson's original. I ask the readers to bear in mind that Andrej was adamant about my faithfully identifying and using the original and knowing all its particulars, but then in his analysis he contrives his own self-generated image and refers to it when trying to refute the original he pretends fidelity to. Of course, all the persons who were backing his previous call for strict fidelity to scientific process and the original all stayed quiet when he tried to swap another image in for his analysis. Even better, they praised it. Very simply, Andrej's example here is automatically rejected by his own board-backed call for fidelity to the original. No matter how many times I inform Andrej that the elongated forehead is Prayer Man's forehead in the first frame being carried over to the ensuing frames as a double exposure he is going to ignore it and continue to use it to attempt to refute Duncan's woman's face. I think it is obvious the elongated forehead claim is ROKC's last desperate attempt to disprove what is otherwise the obvious destruction of their entire Prayer Man thesis with real photographic proof. If Davidson would simply re-post his frame by frame breakdown of his animated gif the fact the elongated forehead is a double exposure and can't be used as reference to any real face as Andrej is doing will become clear. The automatic-approvers are giving knee-jerk praise to a claim that is not only ridiculous in itself but will be quickly shot down by that Davidson frame by frame breakdown. I find Mr Graves to be less than honest here because he already saw the features on Prayer Woman so clearly that he said she looked like Mary Tyler Moore. Now that Andrej has the nerve to place a grotesque imaginary image in its place, Graves stands by and says nothing even though his own words tell the difference. Close examination of Andrej's face shows he is giving credit to two obvious distortion lines and calling them eyes and a mouth. Meanwhile Andrej doesn't mention the eyeglass frame rims in perfect symmetry around Prayer Woman's eyes in Davidson's sharper image. That is the benefit if using a foggier image of his own that doesn't show this as clearly. It's also why his self-created image isn't valid. Andrej offers another of his classic pseudo-analyses using invalid self-generated graphics whose intent is to discredit Davidson's otherwise obvious face of a woman gotten by a process Andrej still hasn't credibly disproven. We are then offered yet another overly-general aside on pareidolia that has no real scientific argument attached to it that has anything to do with the Davidson image he is trying to defeat. Intelligent people should see there is no comparison between Duncan's clear and symmetrical face and Andrej's ridiculous forced image. A juxtaposition of the two would automatically show this. Not only that, but Davidson's frame by frame analysis will show that Andrej is crediting a double exposure of Prayer Woman's forehead that carried over from the first frame as being the real face in Duncan's image when in fact the frame by frame analysis clearly shows that Prayer Woman has moved down from her position in the first frame and the woman's face is where she moved down to - once again associating real movement from the overall evidence with the woman's face in a forensic manner. This dynamic dimension of movement in Davidson's frame by frame breakdown is not offered in Andrej's analysis and therefore doesn't offer the best evidence. The movement of Prayer Woman in the total animated gif shows why the face can't be where Andrej puts it. If you analyze Andrej's response he fails to account for why the woman's face is where it should be on Prayer Woman's body. Instead he violates photo science and claims the false face is on a neck that just so happens to have a mouth and nose on it. He also totally ignores that the woman's face is peering down into a purse, which is once again forensic reinforcement of the woman's face being associated with other objects and actions in the same photo. Graves ignores my previous statement that, contrary to what he claims, Prayer Woman's face is not too large. I asked Graves to compare it to Lovelady's and others in the same shot. If he did he would find Prayer Woman's head and face are in direct proportion to the heads and faces of those others. Graves ignores this and repeats his false claim that the face he saw so clearly as to call it "Mary Tyler Moore" is too large. Mr Graves is being allowed to repeat a false claim while ignoring evidence. Graves also allows Andrej to claim a neck where he himself already acknowledged a Mary Tyler Moore nose and mouth. Very simply: Andrej's yellow outline does not possess symmetrical facial features and the eyes are based on a clearly non-existent distortion line. The blue outline does - which is why Andrej's illustration is, once again, proof of the opposite of what he claims.