PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

[Andrej Stancak]

Cheers, Andrej. You can see that if the top landing was deeper than you have calculated, it could make a huge difference to where PP or BWF could be.

Dear Ray:

the top landing was tiny. You can best check it in the famous photograph in which the doorway is shown from the back through the glass door, I can upload the picture if you would wish.The WC chart showing the top landing as deep is wrong, and I would not draw any conclusions from this drawing.

[Ray Mitcham]

Cheers, Andrej. You can see that if the top landing was deeper than you have calculated, it could make a huge difference to where PP or BWF could be.

Dear Ray:

the top landing was tiny. You can best check it in the famous photograph in which the doorway is shown from the back through the glass door, I can upload the picture if you would wish.The WC chart showing the top landing as deep is wrong, and I would not draw any conclusions from this drawing.

How wide was the door that opened out on to the landing?

I guess it was just about 4'.

[Michael Cross]

Seventh riser 7 1/4"

Sixth riser 7 1/4"

Fifth riser 7 1/4"

Fourth riser 7 1/8"

Third riser 7 1/4"

Second riser 7 1/8"

Bottom riser 6 1/4"

The horizontal distance of lip the top step to the lip of the bottom step is 72 11/16"

Ray, just curious, where did you get exact dimensions for each riser? And, are horizontal dimensions available as well?

[Andrej Stancak]

Cheers, Andrej. You can see that if the top landing was deeper than you have calculated, it could make a huge difference to where PP or BWF could be.

Dear Ray:

the top landing was tiny. You can best check it in the famous photograph in which the doorway is shown from the back through the glass door, I can upload the picture if you would wish.The WC chart showing the top landing as deep is wrong, and I would not draw any conclusions from this drawing.

How wide was the door that opened out on to the landing?

I guess it was just about 4'.

The middle panel was 3'4'' 9/16 in my model.

[Ray Mitcham]

Seventh riser 7 1/4"

Sixth riser 7 1/4"

Fifth riser 7 1/4"

Fourth riser 7 1/8"

Third riser 7 1/4"

Second riser 7 1/8"

Bottom riser 6 1/4"

The horizontal distance of lip the top step to the lip of the bottom step is 72 11/16"

Ray, just curious, where did you get exact dimensions for each riser? And, are horizontal dimensions available as well?

From the staff at the TSBD.

Yes. The treads are all between 12" and 12 1/8"

[Ray Mitcham]

Cheers, Andrej. You can see that if the top landing was deeper than you have calculated, it could make a huge difference to where PP or BWF could be.

Dear Ray:

the top landing was tiny. You can best check it in the famous photograph in which the doorway is shown from the back through the glass door, I can upload the picture if you would wish.The WC chart showing the top landing as deep is wrong, and I would not draw any conclusions from this drawing.

So you guessed the depth of the landing from a photo?

[Andrej Stancak]

Cheers, Andrej. You can see that if the top landing was deeper than you have calculated, it could make a huge difference to where PP or BWF could be.

Dear Ray:

the top landing was tiny. You can best check it in the famous photograph in which the doorway is shown from the back through the glass door, I can upload the picture if you would wish.The WC chart showing the top landing as deep is wrong, and I would not draw any conclusions from this drawing.

So you guessed the depth of the landing from a photo?

Ray: not from one photograph but from several photographs. I certainly checked whether my model would show the same proportions as seen in the back-through photograph. Further, the top landing had to fit all the parts of the doorway, and the whole doorway model had to fit the Google doorway. The top landing does not exist in its original form anymore to verify my estimates. However, if my model would be wrong in some essential aspect, I would simply not be able to reproduce a photographed scene, such as Darnell's scene. The fact that my model could be aligned with the real photograph suggests that the model was sound.

The value of my model is that it allows to generate hypotheses how things could have happen, and to suggest and initially test the most plausible hypotheses. Without making a model and reconstructing Darnell's scene it would be difficult to make up the one-foot-down-one-foot-up possibility. However, a model is only a model, it is not the reality. Therefore, every model including my model needs to be tested in reality. This would entail posing one 6' and one 5'9'' man at spots which my model predicts (I could provide detailed pictures and coordinates) and shooting the doorway using different focal lengths from Darnell's viewpoint. It does not matter so much that the back of the doorway has been rebuilt.

I did my bit...

Edited April 6, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Richard Gilbride]

I have noticed something quite unexpected that hopefully will lead to a precise estimate of the width of the landing. In the Entrance Lobby photo, the reflection of the radiator in the entranceway glass extends almost exactly to the edge of the landing. So that the distance calculation of the near-edge of the radiator to the glass gives the width of the landing.

I'm working on getting a precise formula together, but taking the radiator to be 2.5 feet high, a 4-foot-wide landing seems a safe eyeball guess at the moment. See Robert Prudhomme's post #1799 on p. 120 at the famous PrayerMan thread at http://educationforum.iphost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=120(this link isn't cooperating- this is at the bottom of p.5 of the topics)

On p. 116 you'll find Ray Mitcham's photo of the width of the stair treads. Robert's adjacent photo contains a modern-day landing but the red-line simulating the original width seems incorrect.

Andrej, you don't seem to realize that putting Oswald with one foot down doesn't resolve the height question. Listen to what the phenomenon is telling you, rather than telling the phenomenon how to behave. And your graphic representation is not accurate. Where in Darnell is the bent knee in the sunlight? Where in Darnell is the soda pop bottle? The Wiegman gif is a 2-frame, 4-second differential that only seems like someone drinking.

Andrej Stancak: Prayer Man's right hand was lit by the sunlight on a very small spot, and due to the natural blurring of the picture (distance, resolution, film material) this small bright spot got averaged with the darker part of the rest of his hand, causing the hand looking brighter than the forearm.

Good one. This is the best explanation I've seen yet.

[Andrej Stancak]

I have noticed something quite unexpected that hopefully will lead to a precise estimate of the width of the landing. In the Entrance Lobby photo, the reflection of the radiator in the entranceway glass extends almost exactly to the edge of the landing. So that the distance calculation of the near-edge of the radiator to the glass gives the width of the landing.

I'm working on getting a precise formula together, but taking the radiator to be 2.5 feet high, a 4-foot-wide landing seems a safe eyeball guess at the moment. See Robert Prudhomme's post #1799 on p. 120 at the famous PrayerMan thread at http://educationforum.iphost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=120(this link isn't cooperating- this is at the bottom of p.5 of the topics)

On p. 116 you'll find Ray Mitcham's photo of the width of the stair treads. Robert's adjacent photo contains a modern-day landing but the red-line simulating the original width seems incorrect.

Andrej, you don't seem to realize that putting Oswald with one foot down doesn't resolve the height question. Listen to what the phenomenon is telling you, rather than telling the phenomenon how to behave. And your graphic representation is not accurate. Where in Darnell is the bent knee in the sunlight? Where in Darnell is the soda pop bottle? The Wiegman gif is a 2-frame, 4-second differential that only seems like someone drinking.

Andrej Stancak: Prayer Man's right hand was lit by the sunlight on a very small spot, and due to the natural blurring of the picture (distance, resolution, film material) this small bright spot got averaged with the darker part of the rest of his hand, causing the hand looking brighter than the forearm.

Good one. This is the best explanation I've seen yet.

Dear Richard,

I look forward to learning your estimate of the doorway depth. Were you able to measure the dimensions of the radiator, of the same radiator which stood in the lobby? If not, your "safe eyeball guess" may lead to a wrong estimate after you apply your formula...

I have commented on how the model was constructed and tested in my response to Ray (157).

As per your comment that I do not realise that my solution does not solve the height question - in a way you are right as I am not using my model to provide the height estimates, I use it to test assumptions (hypotheses). I would also test the model for your hypothesis if you would describe it for me: is it still a lady 5'3''? Does she have a purse in her hands or not? Are there any further details I should take into account when reconstructing her location? Please, let me know - after all, are you not interested to see how your preferred hypothesis would fare if projected in the model?

The pose of PM's left leg is optional. We do not see Prayer Man's legs in Darnell due to some blurred human figures obstructing the view. If you would indicate kindly Prayer Man's posture by tracing contours of his legs, I would be keen to correct the position of his left legs accordingly.

As per the light reflection from the back of Prayer Man's hand: the constrain I applied refers only to the position of Prayer Man's hands, this constrain does not define the location of Prayer Man's body. The location is unequivocally defined by Prayer Man's relation to the corner rail and to the height of Frazier's neck (or the horizontal door rail). These two constrains plus the exact Darnell's view implicate where Prayer Man stood. He stood so close to the shadow line cast by the western wall that his hand was either minimally hit by the sun or received some reflection of nearby objects being fully exposed to the sun. As I have explained in my previous response to Ray, it would be possible to model the position of Prayer Man's hands not to reflect the sun light whilst maintaining Prayer Man's location where he is depicted in the 3-D model.

As per the bottle: I assume that Prayer Man in Darnell was the same person as we see in Wiegman's film, and anyone can see that Prayer Man is lifting his arm as the bright object moves upwards from the prayer posture level towards his head. The likely explanation of the phenomenon is that this man was drinking. If drinking, then the question is from what? I reckon it was a bottle he drank from. And as the person in Wiegman was the same person as we see in Darnell, I have placed a bottle into his hands. You are right it cannot be seen because the picture is too blurred. I can hide the bottle with one click. The bottle in Prayer Man's hands just underlies the continuity between Prayer Man in Wiegman and Darnell. Now, it could be your turn to explain the bright spot around Prayer Man moving in Wiegman. I would be keen to learn what you think is what it only "seems" to be a drinking act. Will we learn your explanation?

[Ray Mitcham]

Just a thought.

The door into the TSBD was just under 4' wide, (Opening between walls - 11'6', panels divided into three equal divisions.) let's say about 3'8".

No architect worth his salt would never design a 3'6" door to open out on to a 3'6" landing.

Are there any photos of the entrance showing persons standing on the landing in front of the open door?

Edited April 7, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[John Dolva]

Just for fun I calculated the time of the photo on post 93 using an online right angle calculator, a pythagoras theorem calculator and a us navy sun table calculator and found the time to be just past two o'clock.

13:50 32.3 207.1
14:00 31.3 209.6 < I found the elevation to be 31.5 degrees.
14:10 30.2 212.0

This table also tells that the Azimuth (E of N) is 209.6+ at that time.

I can use that to double check. ie that must be the Azimuth as derived from the photo. I should also compute error margins. Later.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_altazw.pl?form=1&body=10&year=1963&month=11&day=22&intv_mag=10&state=TX&place=dallas
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm
http://www.basic-mathematics.com/pythagorean-theorem-calculator.html

[Richard Gilbride]

My preliminary result is 41.34 inches. Thanks John for getting me thinking about right triangles again, I knocked myself out with 3 other methods like the ancient Greeks. I will doublecheck my measures and explain my technique tomorrow, I think it's correct. There's a little bit more than a 4/3 ratio between the radiator height and distance of the near corner to the plate glass.

[Andrej Stancak]

My preliminary result is 41.34 inches. Thanks John for getting me thinking about right triangles again, I knocked myself out with 3 other methods like the ancient Greeks. I will doublecheck my measures and explain my technique tomorrow, I think it's correct. There's a little bit more than a 4/3 ratio between the radiator height and distance of the near corner to the plate glass.

Dear Richard:

I appreciate your effort. It seems we eventually arrived to at least one point on which we both can agree as your preliminary estimate appears to match the size of 3’6’’ applied in my model. Please let me know if you would like to place some specific human figure at some specific location in the doorway to test how it would fare.

[Richard Gilbride]

I made a dumb fatigue error last night (I have been working 10-hour days). Please disregard that number. Sorry if I misled you.

I will post this mechanical drawing to my website in a couple or three days, under the heading PM? Also the drawing I did on top of the Darnell entranceway to obtain relative heights for PM & Frazier. I will add a fresh scale drawing of Darnell's 75-foot perspective, and any other drawings as needed.

So, I obtained a full-page picture of the Entrance Lobby on p. 15 of WCD 496 at http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10896#relPageId=15&tab=page

I drew lines along the top & bottom of the left-hand side of the radiator- these converge, off the page, at 7 degrees. I drew a vertical line through the blackmost portion of the near-corner rib of the radiator. The next line is drawn from the top near-corner to where the bottom line meets the aluminum border on the floor (i.e. a diagonal across the left face).

To solve the perspective measurement problem, swing the far end toward the viewer so that both the right & left sides form a 90-degree angle. So construct a 90-degree angle with the near-corner vertical, and extend the diagonal until it intersects this newly-constructed line. All of this will be more easily grasped once you see the drawing.

The radiator-width plus distance-to-glass-width measures in perspective (i.e. in the photo) at 5.4 cm; by swinging it toward the viewer it measures at 7.2 cm. The radiator-height stays at 4.6 cm. So we get a ratio to apply to Tony Fratini's 30-inch height measure:

(7.2/4.6)(30) = 46.96 inches. This makes sense, because the width of the door seems to be 3.5 feet, in an 11.5-foot-wide entranceway, and it swings open with a cop in front of it still standing on the landing, as seen in Tony's last post on p. 613 at http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8916.4896.html

We have to remember, in terms of error analysis, that Darnell's camera was some 75 feet away, and a variation in the landing width an inch or so either way would only make a miniscule difference- a hair's width on his entranceway photo.

It seems that an accurate idea of the angle between PrayerMan and the west wall is called for. It looks like that can be figured out with the help of the vertical border strips and the ceiling angle.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Richard Gilbride

[John Dolva]

following on from post #161

In both of these calculations I assume the structures being square, level and plumb. I think that's a reasonable thing. Obviously there will be slight deviations and errors compounded by a not so clear photo as well as the how of choosing lines of projection by eye.

Nevertheless, such a derived Azimuth of 212.3 giving a time of 14.10 + and a derived Elevation giving a time of 14.00 + is an indication that this way of working out the time of a photo in a particular place on a particular day is useful. A number of more careful derivation may lead to more precise times, but to say this photo was taken about 14.05 seems to me to be reasonable. (Knowing when exactly it was taken would be helpful for confirmation though I doubt that information is readily available.)