PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

[Guest Brian Doyle]

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.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Chris Newton]

It is critical to undoing ROKC's attempt to undermine good evidence with false claims.

Thank Mr. Doyle for bringing clarity to your argument.

[Andrej Stancak]

Brian:

1. I indeed can and actually have to generate my own image of the human figure and the doorway to check whether the one posted by Chris and Duncan was a genuine picture. I find the small image with a green arrow frequently discussed in previous posts as a deliberate presentation of only a part of the image which excluded from view the large "elongated" head. The rest of figure, the "female" face of yours and the reflected one (red head in my post) appear to correspond well in both Duncan's and my versions.

2. We disagree on a double exposure issue. Do you mean the film frame got stuck in the camera for a moment and it was therefore exposed again? Then you would need to see the signs of double exposure all over the picture. Can you?

3. Both the yellow face and blue "face" are very noisy. This area of the picture was almost in complete darkness in the eye of the camera. This is only us who pour light and do all possible effects to make it visible. However, the film has registered too little of information. Therefore, the shapes will be heavily compromised and objects which are symmetric in reality would not be such on a film frame.

4. Please try to view the picture with yellow head on a large and good quality screen (I used a 22 inch HP monitor). One dark circle is where the right eye would be, therefore, I placed a yellow circle there. The left eye is confounded with a horizontal dark line, however, an oval object can anyway be seen on the place where the left eye would be. It is distorted, indeed, which I have emphasised by drawing an ellipse instead of a circle. I doubt you would see these details on a 15.4 inch laptop or smaller.

5. The same as (3). Too much noise to be able to say anything about the shapes and objects there. You see a nose and a mouth which are only a game of your mind.

6. This point does not relate to my work.

7. We do not discuss the "sharper" frame of the GIF anymore. We have the original frame which Chris has used to create the GIF.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Guest Brian Doyle]

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.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Sandy Larsen]

The reasons I agree with Andrej's conclusions are:

• There are no signs of double exposure in the image, other than the one Brian is assuming to be double exposure.
• Duncan's "face" is proportionally too big.
• Duncan's "face" is in the wrong place. It needs to be higher to mach the location of Chris's "face."
• Which reminds me... there are TWO "faces." Chris's and Duncan's. Three if you include the extra one Andrej found. Which really means there are none.
• At least Chris's "face" is about the right size and in the right location. But we know it's not a face because it is more clear (less blurry) -- by far -- than any of the other surrounding faces. Which would be impossible.
• Even though the face Andrej outlined in yellow is way distorted and not face-like, that is what I expect. Because PM's arms, chest, and neck are ALSO way distorted. Apparently the image is so dark that making it brighter is leading to grayscale saturation. (Note: "Saturation," as I am using it, is an electrical engineering term that is not related to photographic saturation. I'm using it because I couldn't find the equivalent word used in photography.)

Edited October 3, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

"I find Mr Graves to be less than honest here..." Isn't that a polite way of saying I'm lying here?

"... because he already saw the features on Prayer Woman so clearly that he said she looked like Mary Tyler Moore."

Yes, way too clearly.

[...]

"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."

Prayer Person is standing farther from the camera than the closer (and leaning forward) Lovelady, yet your Prayer Woman's face is larger than Lovelady's.

"Falsehood"??? Isn't that a polite word for "lie"?

[...]

Edited October 3, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Guest Brian Doyle]

The reasons I agree with Andrej's conclusions are:

• There are no signs of double exposure in the image, other than the one Brian is assuming to be double exposure.
• Duncan's "face" is proportionally too big.
• Duncan's "face" is in the wrong place. It needs to be higher to mach the location of Chris's "face."
• Which reminds me... there are TWO "faces." Chris's and Duncan's. Three if you include the extra one Andrej found. Which really means there are none.
• At least Chris's "face" is about the right size and in the right location. But we know it's not a face because it is more clear (less blurry) -- by far -- than any of the other surrounding faces. Which would be impossible.
• Even though the face Andrej outlined in yellow is way distorted and not face-like, that is what I expect. Because PM's arms, chest, and neck are ALSO way distorted. Apparently the image is so dark that making it brighter is leading to grayscale saturation. (Note: "Saturation," as I am using it, is an electrical engineering term that is not related to photographic saturation. I'm using it because I couldn't find the equivalent word used in photography.)

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.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Andrej Stancak]

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.

Thank you, Brian, for explaining your standpoint again.

[Guest Brian Doyle]

...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.

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.

[Andrej Stancak]

Brian:

I never confirmed the reality of the female face which you claim is the only real head in Wiegman's frame 133. I concluded that the face you promote results from 1) low signal and a photographic/digital artifact manifested in the region where "your" female head allegedly occurs, 2) pareidolia as lines and shapes not really originating from a real human face make a visual impression of a head, 3) visual illusion (bistable figure). In none of my messages did I endorse your view. You pointed to a visual phenomenon which Duncan has brought earlier, and you received a feedback from members of this forum. Please count the number of forum members who got convinced by your arguments. You will count zero. Doesn't it tell you that your story is not strong enough?

Notably, the "elongated" head cannot be a "double exposure" or something copied from a GIF. It cannot transpire from a GIF because we have the original frame provided by Chris Davidson, and that frame does show the "elongated" head which all participants of this thread except you agree is the main human figure in frame 133.

Your comments on ROKC and on respected researchers and their work are most inappropriate, in particular because these people are not around and cannot defend themselves. Taking advantage from absence of people whilst negatively commenting on them is cowardice. Your posts reveal that you have a deep problem, an obsession, with the theory of Mr. Murphy which many including myself consider as a major breakthrough in JFK research in the past few years. However, this forum should not provide anyone an outlet for such motivations.

I am afraid that we came to the end of the discussion on this particular figure in frame 133. You have not brought enough clear and unequivocal evidence, and in all fairness you could not - the image in question contains so little information in the critical region that anything occurring there has very limited and conditional value. I would suggest that you refrain from posting on this issue until you gather additional evidence in support of your views. You may have noted that this thread was dormant before your arrival some two weeks ago. The reason is that no one had any new data to discuss, and I find such attitude towards posting correct. Let us post messages that have some original content, are not repetitive, and do not create an impasse.

[James R Gordon]

Gentlemen,

Kathy was very fair to you and gave you the respite to reflect on what has been happening on this thread.

Well that appeared to have no affect. I am locking this thread and the members of the admin will be reflecting on certain members behaviour.

Please note that this is referred to as the "Education" Forum and one element of education is that discourse is implies a conversation based on EVIDENCE!!! Something that appears to be lacking in certain quarters.

I will be open and state I am very edgy about this kind of situation and behaviour. The Lancer Archive - that is now in development - is going to be very significantly much more than the original Lancer Forum. And one element that is now at the heart of this development is the importance of the sharing of resources and ideas: and all of that is part of education. The Lancer archive is now going to have very the initial ideas that were originally embedded in the original forum. But it is going to do much more than that. When it is launched members are going to be astonished at its rebirth,

And so -

I am sorry but at the moment I am very sensitive to this kind of nonsense that reoccured after a member of the admin team had asked you reflect on your behaviour.

James.

[James R Gordon]

This thread is now open again.

James

[Guest]

The Death Of Prayer Woman - Part 2

Edited October 19, 2016 by Bart Kamp

[Guest]

1st gen: Wiegman original

2nd gen enlargement to 35mm

3rd gen postive film sold on to other companies such as Hearst and UCLA

4th gen negative made from positive

5th gen is the positive made from that negative sold to Sprague

6th gen are the Sprague negs.

7th gen the scans

Source letter from Richard E. Sprague.

In case with the CD GIF it would be more:

1 to 4 would be the same process before UCLA has a copy.

5th gen makers of DIDP get a copy.

6th transfer to tape

then the question is does it go from tape to DVD or from the dupe they got from UCLA. My guess is the former rather than the latter since there is not a huge difference in resolution and this happened more than ten years ago (the dvd rel. that is)

So the DVD would be the 7th gen.

The CD Gif the 8th

The Prayer Woman image the 9th!

Who the hell is wheel barrow man Doyle?

Edited October 19, 2016 by Bart Kamp

[Thomas Graves]

1st gen: Wiegman original

2nd gen enlargement to 35mm

3rd gen postive film sold on to other companies such as Hearst and UCLA

4th gen negative made from positive

5th gen is the positive made from that negative sold to Sprague

6th gen are the Sprague negs.

7th gen the scans

Source letter from Richard E. Sprague.

In case with the CD GIF it would be more:

1 to 4 would be the same process before UCLA has a copy.

5th gen makers of DIDP get a copy.

6th transfer to tape

then the question is does it go from tape to DVD or from the dupe they got from UCLA. My guess is the former rather than the latter since there is not a huge difference in resolution and this happened more than ten years ago (the dvd rel. that is)

So the DVD would be the 7th gen.

The CD Gif the 8th

The Prayer Woman image the 9th!

Who the hell is wheel barrow man Doyle?

I'm still trying to figure out how they put an over-sized Mary Tyler Moore head on an undersized Prayer Man.

-- Tommy

Edited October 19, 2016 by Thomas Graves