PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Thank you Mr Stancak for illustrating a classic ROKC-type attempt to deceive. Typical of ROKC input Mr Stancak offers a completely irrelevant example, concocted from his own infamous computer abilities, to answer other evidence. In my mind this shows that Mr Stancak can't answer the evidence I am referring to directly and must refer to his own specious parallel example to maintain his claim. We are not talking about your inadequate images that you dare offer in the face of other evidence Mr Stancak. We are talking about your open inability to answer Davidson's evidence directly. The precise point is that Davidson's Photoshop process was able to validly derive visible images from the available Wiegman film and those images were able to show the undeniable image of a woman's face. I'm surprised you would be so willing to ignore that the woman's face in Davidson had to come from somewhere yet you are attempting to avoid it by offering a totally unrelated self-generated image that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Do you understand that you are only showing the public that you can't answer Davidson's evidence directly?

Edited September 25, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Guest Brian Doyle]

If I offended I apologize, but I would ask for intellectual fairness that the points be adequately addressed for that is clearly what matters the most in this important issue.

No Andrej. Chris is not offering an opinion. His evidence I cited was firm and came directly from Wiegman's film frames. Please answer it. If it was removed it should be re-posted. There is no doubt that credible photo analysis would confirm the image Davidson produced from Wiegman was that of a female face. It is important to cite fact here. Many of the critics admitted this.

Dale Myers has perfect manners.

Mr Stancak has again entered a non-truth. Mr Davidson clearly stated on Duncan's site that he confirmed the face was that of a woman. Mr Stancak may be polite but I consider his offering pure equivocation. I believe the science is not being answered here, which, in my opinion, is normally seen as detrimental to site credibility if tolerated.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Andrej Stancak]

Brian:

we need to see your evidence to be able to comment. Please provide an article, link, or a post number describing the "evidence" so that we can have a look again if you wish so.

I would be grateful if you could keep your messages less personal else what will hapen is that people will start ignoring you not because of their alleged inability to discuss specific points but simply because they do not like your too personal style.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Mr Stancak. Honestly, are my manners really the issue here or is your retreating input that you continue to not account for the issue? Your last entry was invalid and attempted to use a specious claim to refute valid evidence. It is not fair for you to call for evidence you know was wrongfully removed.

Davidson? Your move.

You can't ignore facts Mr Stancak.

Ask Mr Stancak if he was fully participatory in the threads I am referring to.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Andrej Stancak]

Brian:

it is not my obligation to provide evidence on your behalf. You may wish to contact the Author and ask him kindly to re-post his results. I am willing to look at any evidence once you show any.

[Guest Brian Doyle]

It is the obligation of any person seeking the truth to provide evidence Mr Stancak. By verbalizing it that way you expose a tendency to only defend one assumption instead of looking at all the evidence. Who is personalizing it here?

By the way, this evidence was well posted and well discussed - including Mr Stancak. There's no reason why the validity of the well-known woman's face can't be discussed or its evidentiary origin.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Robert Prudhomme]

Taunting posts should not be allowed. They are obviously a concession of the point by their inability to answer seriously-argued information. It tells you their issuer is here for reasons other than serious debate and consider this forum a place to exert their own personal conceits rather than respecting it as a place for serious discussion.

You're just plain wrong Mr Larsen and my references are precisely correct vs your overly vague "from my memory" offering. If Mr Davidson would defend his very good issue-ending material like it deserves instead of offering his mushy position and disappearing you would see what I wrote is backed-up by the facts.

On disappearing Duncan's site Davidson detailed his methodology entering a screenshot of his Photoshop settings for his animated gif. All he did was adjust the contrast setting to enhance the darker and lighter portions of Wiegman - which any photo expert would tell you does not effect the base image in any way that would constitute altering. I have been watching these threads and there are many persons who suggested Davidson somehow altered his images in his gif process. When Davidson posted his Photoshop methodology showing he did no such thing those same posters did not admit or recognize this and went on suggesting Davidson had somehow used alteration tricks. He had already posted information to show he did not. No one on this site called them on it and this site pretends to call for a high level of rigor. Davidson proved he did not alter his Wiegman images in any fundamental way and the only thing he did was bring out the existing, unaltered features more clearly by adjusting the contrast setting. This is a perfectly acceptable photo analysis practice that no critic of Davidson was honest enough to admit. What it did was bring out the features on Prayer Man a little more clearly from the shadows. It was actually quite brilliant and was the advanced photo analysis pro-Murphy theorists were calling for. They just didn't like the results when they showed they were totally wrong in their supposition it was Lee Harvey Oswald. As you can see here, none of Davidson's accusers were able to show where his methodology was faulty. I'm shocked that this site would be providing the above input as its offering of rigor towards a subject that deserves a higher level of scientific response. I have offered that level and the responses are noticeably lacking in adequate response. That's because Davidson's proof is good.

For those interested in the accurate truth on this, as I wrote above, when Davidson inserted the Wiegman frames into his Photoshop gif it resulted in the images I cited above. As I explained, there is a perfectly understandable, scientific reason why the woman's face showed up in the last frame. Over on Duncan's forum Davidson and Duncan reviewed the individual frames separated by Davidson's Photoshop process. As I cited above, the last frame was exceptionally clearer and sharper than the others because Wiegman's camera - like Zapruder's - took sharp images when the frame landed on a steady camera position. Bart Kamp tried to fool the Education Forum membership by claiming he found a flaw in Davidson that discredited the woman's face. Not so and Kamp was entering a specious claim that was not scientifically connected to the real evidence. And he did so after having it explained to him multiple times on several forums why that was so. The elongated forehead is a technical quirk of Davidson's Photoshop process and is not related in any way to the woman's face. It does not scientifically affect or refute the image with the woman's face. It has a perfectly understandable explanation that Kamp ignored when it was explained to him. Kamp did not return to account for this.

I'm sorry but my input shows why Davidson's image of a woman's face has a perfectly credible methodology and scientific tracing. It is because Wiegman's camera managed to capture a sharp image in that frame because of the luck of landing on a steady camera shot. Davidson's contrast enhancement and MacRae's enlargement assisted in making that face more clear. It has a perfectly valid explanation and shows a woman's face beyond a doubt. By all normal means of analysis it refutes the Murphy theory. That's simply the way it is and this site should examine its actions considering because they have a seriously detrimental effect on the level of rigor the site aspires to in my opinion. I have seen no argument to show otherwise, and personally I think the resistance comes from some researchers not wanting to admit they were wrong on their heavily-backed Murphy theory.

"Never argue with an idiot; they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~~ Mark Twain ~~

Isn't that right, Albert?

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Mr Prudhomme obviously sees himself as above answering good evidence. I take it as the concession it is.

The only discussable issue here is the last clear frame showing the woman's face that Davidson isolated from the Wiegman film using Photoshop.

I would like to point out that Mr Prudhomme was one of the main posters who posted endless speculative scenarios on numerous assassination research boards based on Murphy's now-refuted thesis and took up large bandwidth with what is now objectively a bogus theory. I have seen him praised for his entries numerous times.

There's a saying that if you can't attack the facts you attack the poster. If you are calling me an idiot Mr Prudhomme please show so directly via my arguments instead of answering with one liners.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr Prudhomme obviously sees himself as above answering good evidence. I take it as the concession it is.

The only discussable issue here is the last clear frame showing the woman's face that Davidson isolated from the Wiegman film using Photoshop.

I would like to point out that Mr Prudhomme was one of the main posters who posted endless speculative scenarios on numerous assassination research boards based on Murphy's now-refuted thesis and took up large bandwidth with what is now objectively a bogus theory. I have seen him praised for his entries numerous times.

There's a saying that if you can't attack the facts you attack the poster. If you are calling me an idiot Mr Prudhomme please show so directly via my arguments instead of answering with one liners.

I rest my case, Albert. No need to show something when that person is doing a splendid job of proving my point all by himself.

P.S.

You respond very well to the name Albert, Brian.

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Just to clarify what is being argued here the last frame Davidson produced showed the clear image of a woman's face on Prayer Man. This is something that exists in hard verifiable evidence and cannot be disputed. I have presented a sound explanation of why that image is based on valid evidence above as well as a sound explanation for why the critics' denials were not. In the previous frames Davidson isolated you can see the background objects are slightly blurry due to camera motion as well as Prayer Man. In the frame with the woman's face the background objects are in sharp focus and clear as well as Prayer Man's face. This is because Wiegman's camera was still for that frame and snapped a stable shot. That frame constitutes the valid photo improvement pro-Murphy advocates were calling for with their call for a "better scan". The criteria for that better scan were met with some simple Photoshop adjustments and an enlargement.

Taunting does not equal sound argument and Mr Prudhomme obviously concedes the issue. What is painfully being avoided here is admission that once those photo analysis experts got hold of Davidson's frame with the woman's face it would even further be resoundingly proven. There's no getting around Davidson's frame clearly showing the face of a woman and therefore once and for all ending the Prayer Man issue.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Sandy Larsen]

In the previous frames Davidson isolated you can see the background objects are slightly blurry due to camera motion as well as Prayer Man. In the frame with the woman's face the background objects are in sharp focus and clear as well as Prayer Man's face.

The background objects are most certainly NOT in sharp focus. Here is Chris's photo that allegedly shows a woman's face:

And I admit that it looks like a woman's face.

Note that there are two Loveladys in this photo. The one on the right is the one belonging to this frame. The shorter one -- next to Prayer Man -- is from a different frame. Chris added it there to be used as a height reference for the bright spot Prayer Man is holding.

I need to emphasize something: The clearer picture of Lovelady in this frame is from a different frame. So don't think that, since Lovelady's face in this photo is clear, Prayer Man's face can be too. You need to compare the clarity of Prayer Man's face with the clarity of all the other faces from the same frame. This frame's Lovelady is just as blurry as all the other characters in the frame.

Chris said that all he did was adjust brightness and contrast. Doing those things will NOT make things less blurry. And yet Chris and Brian Doyle will have us believe that Prayer Man's face is now much less blurry.

You can make a picture easier (or harder) to see by adjusting contrast and brightness, but you cannot reduce blurriness that way. If we could, we could reduce the blurriness of every character in the frame. And the whole film.

The only way to reduce blurriness is by deconvolving the point spread function that caused the blurriness. Chris did not do that. ("Point spread function" is a mathematical description of the blur. "Deconvolution" is the process used to remove the effect of the point spread.)

Sorry folks, but this is nothing more than wishful thinking.

P.S. As I said in my last post, I specialized in digital signal processing in college, and image processing is a part of that specialty. I have a deep understanding of this topic. It is not something that I just boned up on, like I have other topics discussed on the forum.

Click here to see Chris's original post, Post 265. In Post 269 he explains why he pasted the extra copy of Lovelady's in the photo. In Post 273 he explains what he did to get the "woman's" face to appear.

For our convenience I am posting below a GIF that shows the two frames from which the one above was made. As you can see, the one above is the more blurry of the two frames. Except that the extra copy of Lovelady in the above frame is from the more clear of the two frames.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

I really can't tell who is in that corner but I'll acknowledge it's someone.

In that everyone identified so far on the steps are employees of companies inside the TSBD I think odds are that he/she/it is also an employee.

Bart has put forth a pretty good argument for LHO, I'm really impressed by his attention to detail. Duncan not so much, maybe it's his presentation or attitude, idk.

I spent 5 years in video production as an IT guy and I learned a little bit about photography and encoding. I'm not impressed at all with the scans that we have to work from.

I think there has to be a push to get high def scans from the original negatives that haven't been converted to JPG or GIF or uploaded to a site which automatically re-encodes like youtube and facebook because that process takes definition away from the areas that we want to see.

garbage in garbage out.

Chris,

Several months ago, Duncan posted a large closeup GIF of Prayer Persons's head in which I detected (by freeze-framing very quickly) movement of PP's head to his right (and back again), and I could see sideburns on the left side of his face.

I wish I could find that GIF again on some website so I could try to tell others what I did in order to see all of that.

-- Tommy

PS Perhaps Andrej or somebody could re-create the same GIF if Duncan's can't be found.

bumped

Edited September 26, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Very foolish Mr Larsen. Your bottom image is all you need and is all I am referring to. The problem is your first image is totally irrelevant and once again based on a specious claim. This happens far too often and it isn't called-out by anyone.

If you bothered to follow my arguments more accurately instead of fishing for ways to undermine them you would realize you proved my case with your bottom illustration. In that image the second photo from which the woman's face was derived by both Davidson and MacRae is visibly much sharper and clearer and does prove my point (while you fail to notice). This isn't good rigor and doesn't add to the credibility of any site practicing it. Persons who present material that proves my point and don't notice should be prone to questions over competency.

Over on Duncan's forum Davidson (or I think it was Duncan showing Davidson) provided an even better breakdown of the frame by frame content of Davidson's animated gif. That breakdown also clearly showed the last frame was much sharper and therefore technically explained why the woman's face showed up in that frame more clearly than the others.

You have a problem here Mr Larsen you haven't made any effort to account for. As you yourself admit above you say you agree it looks like a woman's face. Well, where did that face come from? Don't you realize that for you to suggest there is some question over the legitimacy of Duncan's claim, and admit there's a visible image of a woman's face, requires some kind of explanation as to what is causing it? Like others, you poke around the fringes by offering analyses on photo blurriness but fail to account for the main issue - that is, there's a woman's face that you admit to that shows up in Davidson.

I'm not sure you realize your argument is deficient because it fails to recognize that Davidson accounted for all his input and all he did was input raw Wiegman stock into his Photoshop animated gif process. In other words the result of the woman's face derives from clean input of raw film footage into a perfectly legitimate Photoshop process. Davidson was open about this and I noticed when he answered the "metadata" calls from this site and satisfied them he got no response and no one called-out the critics on it. What you critics fail to realize or account for in your arguments is if a woman's face results from that process that therefore it is part of Wiegman's original film and therefore cannot be denied.

Sandy, it is silly to admit you see the woman's face and then offer what you do in consideration of the greater context and my arguments. It's important to be precise in what is discussed and your second image fully backs what I am saying. If you notice the second image is much sharper and the background objects are also much sharper as I said. Please do not involve irrelevant examples in your responses. This site made a poll where a majority came in on the side of Murphy and against MacRae. They were wrong. It is less than honorable to not admit this.

[Guest Brian Doyle]

I'd also like to add that Bart Kamp continued to push the elongated forehead issue long after it was shown to be invalid on other sites Mr Kamp had read. In normal academic circles it is a serious violation to present material to a peer group that you know is false. I had shown Mr Kamp that his claim that the elongated forehead discredited MacRae was not valid yet, knowing I did not post over here, he continued to try to use it. Mr Kamp has not come back to account for this on this site even though he openly challenged my character for not participating here and was quite aggressive about it. Well here I am and there are my arguments. I don't see Mr Kamp rushing back to account for it.

[Sandy Larsen]

Very foolish Mr Larsen. Your bottom image is all you need and is all I am referring to. The problem is your first image is totally irrelevant and once again based on a specious claim. This happens far too often and it isn't called-out by anyone.

If you bothered to follow my arguments more accurately instead of fishing for ways to undermine them you would realize you proved my case with your bottom illustration. In that image the second photo from which the woman's face was derived by both Davidson and MacRae is visibly much sharper and clearer and does prove my point (while you fail to notice). This isn't good rigor and doesn't add to the credibility of any site practicing it. Persons who present material that proves my point and don't notice should be prone to questions over competency.

Over on Duncan's forum Davidson (or I think it was Duncan showing Davidson) provided an even better breakdown of the frame by frame content of Davidson's animated gif. That breakdown also clearly showed the last frame was much sharper and therefore technically explained why the woman's face showed up in that frame more clearly than the others.

You have a problem here Mr Larsen you haven't made any effort to account for. As you yourself admit above you say you agree it looks like a woman's face. Well, where did that face come from? Don't you realize that for you to suggest there is some question over the legitimacy of Duncan's claim, and admit there's a visible image of a woman's face, requires some kind of explanation as to what is causing it? Like others, you poke around the fringes by offering analyses on photo blurriness but fail to account for the main issue - that is, there's a woman's face that you admit to that shows up in Davidson.

I'm not sure you realize your argument is deficient because it fails to recognize that Davidson accounted for all his input and all he did was input raw Wiegman stock into his Photoshop animated gif process. In other words the result of the woman's face derives from clean input of raw film footage into a perfectly legitimate Photoshop process. Davidson was open about this and I noticed when he answered the "metadata" calls from this site and satisfied them he got no response and no one called-out the critics on it. What you critics fail to realize or account for in your arguments is if a woman's face results from that process that therefore it is part of Wiegman's original film and therefore cannot be denied.

Sandy, it is silly to admit you see the woman's face and then offer what you do in consideration of the greater context and my arguments. It's important to be precise in what is discussed and your second image fully backs what I am saying. If you notice the second image is much sharper and the background objects are also much sharper as I said. Please do not involve irrelevant examples in your responses. This site made a poll where a majority came in on the side of Murphy and against MacRae. They were wrong. It is less than honorable to not admit this.

Oh, right Brian... the photo we are discussing -- the one where Chris introduced the "woman" he'd found -- is irrelevant. Ha! that's a good one!

It's "irrelevant" because it proves you wrong and now you're trying squirm your way out of your predicament.

Well good luck, pal... You're gonna need it!