PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Mr Newton, it is a plainly stated site rule that no one is allowed to question the identity or intent of other posters.

[Sandy Larsen]

Dear Brian,

Chris Davidson's blue-green lines help us to realize that Prayer Man simultaneously lowers his hands and raises his head. Interestingly, Billy Lovelady leans forward (or as Bart says, starts to go down the steps) at the same time. Prayer Man and Lovelady are obviously reacting to the sound of a shot, as are one of the two Khaki Guys (who turns his head towards the TSBD) and two or three of the ladies standing on the sidewalk who raise their hand to their mouth.

Your "elongated head" is not a photographic artifact but a combination of Prayer Man's now-raised head and his now-visible white T-Shirt under his partially unbuttoned outer shirt.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

I think you may be on to something here.

I looked at the frames carefully, and if one imagines that the top of PM's shoulders is roughly in the middle of Chris's two blue lines, then everything seems to work out. Assume that the bright object is the upper lens of the Imperial Reflex Camera. When PM tilts his head down and lifts the camera, the bottom part of the camera covers the part of "Oswald's" upper chest uncovered by his v-neck shirt. When he tilts his head up and lowers the camera, his upper chest is exposed.

(Caveat: It seems to me that the camera and chest would be at roughly the same level on the gray scale. Unless this is a different, dark-bodied camera.)

I imagine that the reason PM's face is devoid of features, compared to the features of the others, is that there is less information available in the dark, shaded area.

A good way to confirm this possibility would be to look at some adjacent frames of the film using the same brightness/contrast enhancements used by Chris to see if the "long face" area isn't just a temporary artifact.

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Mr Larsen: I'm not sure you realize Davidson/MacRae produced an image that shows the glowing object is the back of Prayer Man's hand and fingers glowing in sunlight. The hand had knuckles and a visible slit between the fingers.

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Will somebody please advise Sandy that the sharper image in his two part gif is the one with the woman's face.

An enlargement of the face area will prove this (as MacRae showed).

Case in point: Post #323 -

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22616&page=22

Edited September 28, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Thomas Graves]

Mr Graves. If you were following this thread more carefully you would see that I don't need to answer your unsupported sideburns claim because the woman's face trumps it on an evidentiary basis. You are wasting our time in other words. Scientific logic dictates that the sharper image of a woman's face should show those alleged sideburns if they existed. Since it doesn't, but does instead show the distinct face of a woman (as even some of the detractors admit) we can forego having to answer your now reasonably disallowed submisson.

Please try to stick to the subject at hand.

Dear Brian,

It would appear that at least you finally understand what I'm talking about.

Thank God for small miracles.

-- Tommy

@Brian: I don't know how the presence of sideburns wouldn't be relevant to the topic of this thread..

I for one would like to see the sideburn frames.

Tommy, if those are indeed sideburns, wouldn't that rule out Oswald as Prayer Man? I don't recall seeing sideburns on Oswald.

Sandy, if I remember correctly, they were't exactly muttonchops.

Regardless, do you not want to even look at if it's not going to be Oswald? (I think it's Oswald, btw.)

We need to get Andrej or someone to make an enlarged GIF of Prayer Person's head (only) during the whole "elongated forehead" segment.

-- Tommy

Edited September 28, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Gentlemen, I have shown proof the sharper image is the one containing the woman's face. I would please like acknowledgement of that so we can proceed with the establishment of facts. I have been falsely accused of misrepresenting the image. I want it clarified.

By the way, MacRae already made the requested enlargement of the face area and it showed a woman's face.

please note that what Brian said isn't true.

Disproven by my linked proof. I'd please like this clarified.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Sandy Larsen]

Folks, I cannot let stand without strong rebuke what Brian Doyle keeps insisting. He has this thing backward and for some reason he either can't see it or won't admit it.

This is very simple, please observe.

1. Note that Chris's "woman" came from the large, tilted frame. (Not the smaller inset.) We know this because that is the frame where the bright object is up near PM's face.
   
2. Now, compare the two frames. Which one is more blurry. Correct, the large frame is more blurry.
   
3. Therefore, Chris's "woman" came from the blurry frame.

I suspect that Brian will continue to disagree with me on this. If so, Brian, tell me where I am wrong. Specifically, number 1, 2, or 3? And please, no long speeches.

EDIT: Note that I wrote this post (and all my others above) before Brian revealed that he'd been referring to a different "woman's" face than the one I'd been talking about.... the one Chris had posted on this forum.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

Gentlemen, I have shown proof the sharper image is the one containing the woman's face. I would please like acknowledgement of that so we can proceed with the establishment of facts. I have been falsely accused of misrepresenting the image. I want it clarified.

By the way, MacRae already made the requested enlargement of the face area and it showed a woman's face.

Dear Brian,

I'm not requesting just an enlargement of Prayer Person's face. I'm requesting that it also be in animated GIF form, lasting for the whole "elongated head" section of the film.

There's a big difference between a "still" and an animated GIF.

Did Duncan delete the one that used to be on a similar thread on this forum because he realized, after I pointed it out, that you could see in it that his Prayer Woman had ... sideburns?

-- Tommy

Edited September 28, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

3) Mr Stancak claimed my offerings were silly and unsupported. I responded that I had supported my claims via Mr Larsen's gifs that, counter to what Mr Larsen claimed, backed what I was saying and showed that Mr Larsen had it backwards. The evidence did back what I was saying and no admission was made that I was indeed correct. Since Mr Larsen's gif showed the face did indeed appear in the sharper frame, as I contended, it is my suggestion that we should discuss what that shows and what direction the debate is going in considering? I'm failing to see this simple normal debate demand as being violating of site rules. After all, the forum's title is "JFK Assassination Debate".

Just so everybody understands, every animated GIF I have presented regarding the "woman" Chris Davidson sees in PM is his, not mine.

[Guest Brian Doyle]

You're not paying attention to what is being shown Mr Larsen. If you followed my link you can see plainly that the image with the woman's face that Bart Kamp isolates is the one with the high elongated forehead. Please go back and look carefully at your two images in your gif. The blurry one is the one without the high forehead. The sharp one is the one with the elongated forehead. This is proof beyond a doubt that, counter to what you accuse me of, the sharp image IS the one with the woman's face. If you enlarge the face area of that sharper image you will see the exact same face Duncan discovered when he also enlarged it.

Post #323:

http://educationforu...c=22616&page=22

[Thomas Graves]

You're not paying attention to what is being shown Mr Larsen. If you followed my link you can see plainly that the image with the woman's face that Bart Kamp isolates is the one with the high elongated forehead. Please go back and look carefully at your two images in your gif. The blurry one is the one without the high forehead. The sharp one is the one with the elongated forehead. This is proof beyond a doubt that, counter to what you accuse me of, the sharp image IS the one with the woman's face. If you enlarge the face area of that sharper image you will see the exact same face Duncan discovered when he also enlarged it.

Post #323:

http://educationforu...c=22616&page=22

Dear Brian,

Do you mean the one in which "Prayer Woman's" head is much too large for her body?

-- Tommy

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Sandy, Please go to my link of Kamp's post and observe the heads of the two women closest to the foreground. Then go back and look closely at the blurry shot and the sharp one in Davidson's two part gif. The heads of those two women are only in the foreground in the sharp shot proving the woman's face is from the sharp shot.

I have to protest that there are people who know this is true who aren't chiming-in. (Honestly, this is basic photo analysis people)

Post #323:

http://educationforu...c=22616&page=22

Edited September 28, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Sandy Larsen]

What I said is true. If you look closely at the sharper image it is the one that possesses the [woman's] face. That is the same image Bart Kamp showed with the high forehead.

See Brian? No high forehead.

I don't know how you continue to believe what you do.

Look below everybody! The frame that is NOT BLURRY has the high forehead. The frame that is BLURRY does NOT have the high forehead. And the "woman's" face is on the blurry frame. We know because 1) she doesn't have a high forehead and 2) she has the bright object up to her face.

[Sandy Larsen]

Mr Larsen, look very carefully at the shifting dual image you linked. The face doesn't appear until the hands are lowered from in front of it. That is very definitely the image with the high forehead - which, by no doubt, is the sharper image.

LOL, well then you are seeing a different face than the one pointed out by Chris on this thread! Which is the one we see here:

This is the one Chris posted when he first announced he could see the woman's face, back in Post 265 on this page.

Had you read my post carefully before responding to it, you wouldn't have wasted all our time.

[Sandy Larsen]

Will somebody please advise Sandy that the sharper image in his two part gif is the one with the woman's face.

An enlargement of the face area will prove this (as MacRae showed).

Case in point: Post #323 -

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22616&page=22

Brian,

In my very first post on this topic, I showed a copy of the photo Chris posted when he first announced he saw a woman's face. I linked to his post so that you and anybody else could confirm it.

Had you read my post instead of simply responding blindly to it, you would have known that. And you could have saved us all this back and forth.

In my subsequent posts I did the same. And still you responded without reading what I'd said. I am angry because you have wasted a lot of my time. I suggest you show more respect in the future by reading peoples' posts before responding to them.