PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Tommy,

Yes, of course I would like to see the sideburns, whether or not they match Oswald's.

Do you recall if they look like the short sideburn shown in this hairline of PM? (The middle image.) I'm not sure if that qualifies as a sideburn. But it does look like a man's hairline.

s

[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

I don't see a woman's face in that frame. I see a Frankenstein's monster.

It needs to be pointed out that the "woman's" face that Chris showed us (the one that to me looks like a woman's face) is in a different anatomical position than the "woman's" face that Brian showed us (via the above link).

Chris's woman (her eyes and hair) are above the top blue line in the following GIF. Brian's (Duncan's?) woman is between the two blue lines.

Here is Chris's "woman:"

And here (in the left image) is Brian's "woman:"

Edited September 28, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

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

Tommy,

Yes, of course I would like to see the sideburns, whether or not they match Oswald's.

Do you recall if they look like the short sideburn shown in this hairline of PM? (The middle image.) I'm not sure if that qualifies as a sideburn. But it does look like a man's hairline.

s

Sandy,

Yes, I recognized it as a man's hairline. Very short sideburns; definitely male.

It's too bad that Duncan or one of the moderators deleted that animated gif and my posts about it when this "research" thread was created..

-- Tommy

Edited September 28, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Brian,

They didn't chime in because you were referring to a different "woman" than the one posted by Chris in this thread. All of my prior posts were referring to Chris's "woman." I didn't know about Duncan's woman, the one with the high forehead.

Actually I vaguely recall that Duncan was once criticized for cropping the high forehead off that image. But I don't recall if that was with regard to the "woman" he'd found.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Yes, Duncan's image of a woman's face is the one from the frame with the elongated forehead. The sharp frame. It is the only woman's face I am discussing. Kamp's image above is definitely not the best image available on that. There is a bigger one that shows the face better. This woman's face seen between the two lines is not available in the blurry shot as far as I know.

The best image Kamp presents above is the one on the right under "Why is the area above excluded?" You can see the woman's face in that one. If we were to get the very best image we would see there is an almost pretty woman's face with glasses. Some people say they see a Frankenstein monster because they are trying to use the elongated forehead as an excuse to deny the face. But I have already explained Davidson's frame by frame breakdown conclusively showed the extra forehead was just Prayer Woman's forehead in the first frame being carried over as a double exposure in the ensuing frames. Some people are trying to ignore this because they are using it as an excuse to not recognize the woman's face. That elongated forehead does not have anything to do with the woman's face Duncan showed in his enlargement. They are two separate entities that do not affect each other and the woman's face must be discussed separately as the independent entity it is that derives from the sharp frame.

Kamp's "Why is the area above excluded?" image is from the sharp image and shows a woman with glasses peering into a purse she is holding with two hands while her right hand glows in the sun. We can show this best with Duncan's better image.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Thomas Graves]

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

Tommy,

Yes, of course I would like to see the sideburns, whether or not they match Oswald's.

Do you recall if they look like the short sideburn shown in this hairline of PM? (The middle image.) I'm not sure if that qualifies as a sideburn. But it does look like a man's hairline.

s

Sandy,

Yes, I recognized it as a man's hairline. Very short sideburns; definitely male.

It's too bad that Duncan or one of the moderators deleted that animated gif and my posts about it when this "research" thread was created..

-- Tommy

Like this:

[Sandy Larsen]

If Duncan's "woman" is really a woman, then she must be pouring coffee in her eyes instead of drinking it.

Click this GIF to enlarge it. Then hold down CTRL and hit the + key several times to enlarge it even more. Look at where the bright spot is relative to the "woman's face" when PM brings it up.

Maybe she's toasting the procession with her coffee.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Tommy,

Yes, of course I would like to see the sideburns, whether or not they match Oswald's.

Do you recall if they look like the short sideburn shown in this hairline of PM? (The middle image.) I'm not sure if that qualifies as a sideburn. But it does look like a man's hairline.

s

Sandy,

Yes, I recognized it as a man's hairline. Very short sideburns; definitely male.

It's too bad that Duncan or one of the moderators deleted that animated gif and my posts about it when this "research" thread was created..

-- Tommy

Like this:

I see what you mean. Yeah, it's a shame that animated GIF was deleted or lost.

[Guest Brian Doyle]

If Duncan's "woman" is really a woman, then she must be pouring coffee in her eyes instead of drinking it.

Click this GIF to enlarge it. Then hold down CTRL and hit the + key several times to enlarge it even more. Look at where the bright spot is relative to the "woman's face" when PM brings it up.

Maybe she's toasting the procession with her coffee.

Now do the same CTRL + enlarging with Kamp's "Why is the area above excluded?" image. Once enlarged you will see the rims of two large woman's eyeglass frames circling the eyes. You will also see the fingers of a glowing hand and barely visible slits between them as well as knuckles. Mr Larsen, you obviously don't have good comprehension of the image because once you enlarge it you will see the glowing hand is nowhere near the completely visible face.

You have also referred the the glowing hand as a camera and coffee mug in the same thread. It can't be a white coffee mug because that level of whiteness would have showed up in the images where the right hand goes into shadow. There's zero registration of any white object in those shots, excluding any white mug that photo science would necessitate would be visible under those light properties.

[Andrej Stancak]

The face which Brian and Duncan have seen in one of the GIF images is, in my opinion, a pareidolia – the game of our mind which connects uncertain, noisy elements of visual field into a face. As I mentioned in my previous post about the experiment by Glasgow scientists, two circles with a dash in between is enough for people to falsely claim that there was a face in a cloud of noisy dots.

To evaluate the GIF in which alleged female face is present, one needs to evaluate how much information is present in the original image. If the information is low, the risk of pareidolia is high as the elements in the picture were most likely random assemblies of pixels. Therefore, I requested in several posts that the original large frame from which any analysis has been made would be provided. The best version of Wiegman frame 133 which I was able to locate is the one below. The picture was downloaded from the excellent ROKC repository of photographs. The picture is bright enough as it stands to be analysed without any further processing.

http://memberfiles.freewebs.com/15/59/98545915/photos/undefined/WiegmanTrulyGrp-VERYCLEAR-FromDragooToKhakiMen-Lovelady&PMClearlySeenOnSteps.jpg

I have cut the part of the doorway containing Prayer Man without adding any processing. The picture, in my view, shows the male head and also a relatively bright neck and part of the chest. There is a dark spot next to Prayer Man’s right side of his neck, which relates to the dark background. The left side of the neck also shows a slightly darker area (which can be made even darker by adding brightness/contrast). Below these two darker spots next to the left and right side of the neck, there are slightly brighter regions corresponding to Prayer Man’s neck and/or chest (white T-shirt).

Now, this picture is bistable. If you look at it for some time, you either see the Prayer Man’s head, or you rather see another head in Prayer Man's neck area. This illusory head is created by two darker spots next to Prayer Man’s neck, the border of the white T-shirt (or skin of the chest) and Prayer Man’s chin standing for the forehead of this illusion head.

There is also a problem of image quality which contributes to the pareidolic capacity of this picture. Although the original Wiegman's still looks great, once we start to analyse it on pixel level, it becomes clear that it has been created in a digital process which involves data compression, something what Chris Newton has emphasised recently. The digital artifacts often manifest as larger squares of pixels which are displaced ususally by one row of pixels from neighboring squares of pixels. It is likely that that this displacement of pixel assemblies also occurred in the area of Prayer Man’ face. Below is a corrected image in which the whole square of pixels has been moved one row of pixels to the right. The continuity of the lines in Prayer Man’s head becomes natural and obvious.

With a bit of reasoning we can discard the lower face as a real human face. If the lower face would be the true one, where would the upper head come from? In contrast, if we accept the top head as the true one, the lower head can be explained as an illusion or pareidolia.

I am adding one more, processed, picture for those who would not be able to view the above two pictures in a dark room (there is not much seen if ambient light is strong). I have added the contrast and the light.

The power of pareidolia can be appreciated if you view the upper left corner of this image - there is one more head looking to the right.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Sandy Larsen]

Mr Larsen, you obviously don't have good comprehension of the image because once you enlarge it you will see the glowing hand is nowhere near the completely visible face.

Brian,

The GIF I posted is animated and has two frames. One of the frames shows PM lifting the bright object up to the eye-level of the woman you and Duncan see.

You apparently read my post but looked at some other GIF.

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Sandy, I have never been talking about your interpretation of what you consider the image with the woman's face - which is a totally different image. The clear context of what I have been referencing from the start is Duncan's MacRae's enlargement of Chris Davidson's animated gif frame. I thought that was understood. I honestly don't see why it takes several pages to establish a basic understanding of what is being discussed here.

If you input my offerings in this thread into the MacRae image of the woman's face that came from the sharper of the two images in the gif you posted you will see it proves Prayer Man is a woman and therefore cannot be Lee Harvey Oswald as a majority contend.

There are more important things to discuss here than who is referencing what image. If you did the CTRL + enlarging of the image I referenced from Kamp's #323 post you see the glowing object is the back of Prayer Woman's right hand and fingers glowing in sun. Close examination of that enlarged glowing hand will detect fingers with barely visible slits between them and knuckles. Photo experts will confirm this so there is really no point in arguing it. Also, that same expert photo science will confirm that the glowing hand can't be a white coffee mug because the photographic properties of the picture require that such a white colored object would be visible when Prayer Woman lowers that right hand into shadow. If you observe closely, when Prayer Woman lowers that hand into shadow the resulting color shade is similar to other exposed skin on Prayer Woman. I feel this is a strong evidentiary point with proof behind it that deserves an answer.

Sandy, we are not talking about your misinterpretation of what image we are referencing, we are talking about Duncan's image, its evidentiary credibility, and how it proves Prayer Man is a woman. It was my point from the beginning that this thread did not adequately address the evidence, which is why I was introducing Duncan's image as proof.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Mr Stancak is once again in defiance of science and refuses to directly address what I am writing. If you'll notice he does not address any of the points I made showing why the woman's face in MacRae's enlargement can't be pareidolia.

Mr Stancak also enters 3 dark images where almost nothing is visible in terms of Prayer Woman. This is not sound analysis because it does not offer the readers the best evidence. I feel it makes an attempt to cloud the good evidence by suggesting qualities of darkness that unconsciously imply lack of visibility or visible evidence. Mr Stancak's images are useless towards this debate and only serve as background to a specious rumination on pareidolia that is being offered as a parallel argument instead of directly confronting my points.

Those points were:

1) That a clearly defined face, that exists exactly on the body where a face would be, as exists in Duncan's image, is one that is vastly more likely to be a real face than an imaginary one. Mr Stancak offers no reply to this.

2) Photo experts could examine both Davidson's Photoshop methodology and the resulting image and confirm whether or not the face derived from a clean photo process. This is a rather apparent elephant in the room that I feel Mr Stancak does not confront, nor does he offer the best arguments or approach by doing so.

3) I don't think Mr Stancak realizes we are through the looking glass on this and those same experts could examine the image with the woman's face on a micro photo tech basis and see that the subtle photo properties of that face matches other real objects that were similarly brought out by Davidson's process.

4) Mr Stancak totally ignores that the facial posture of that face matches other known activities seen in the same animated gif. When Davidson's gif is run it shows a woman holding her purse with both hands up by her face. The face itself is obviously looking down into that purse being held up to it. This is a corroborating behavioral forensic dynamic that makes the suggestion the woman's face had all these confirming forensic factors by pure chance, and was an imaginary image that just so happened to do all these things, in the impossible range.

5) The specific facial features are anatomically precise, which is unlikely in pareidolia images. (Also ignored)

6) There's a clearly visible pair of woman's style eyeglass rims on Prayer Woman's visible glasses. This will also be confirmed by expert photo analysts. (Also ignored)

7) This entire debate is silly because once the best photo experts got hold of the Wiegman Film and applied the best modern technology to it they would confirm everything I've written and end the issue. The Prayer Man claim is doomed by science.

Sorry, but you can't ignore this condemning scientific proof and just offer another discussion of pareidolia. Nowhere in Mr Stancak's reply is there any attempt to explain why Davidson's Photoshop technique wasn't valid or why the more than obvious image of a woman's face wasn't the clean result of that valid process.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Andrej Stancak]

Mr Stancak is once again in defiance of science and refuses to directly address what I am writing. If you'll notice he does not address any of the points I made showing why the woman's face in MacRae's enlargement can't be pareidolia.

Mr Stancak also enters 3 dark images where almost nothing is visible in terms of Prayer Woman. This is not sound analysis because it does not offer the readers the best evidence. I feel it makes an attempt to cloud the good evidence by suggesting qualities of darkness that unconsciously imply lack of visibility or visible evidence. Mr Stancak's images are useless towards this debate and only serve as background to a specious rumination on pareidolia that is being offered as a parallel argument instead of directly confronting my points.

Those points were:

1) That a clearly defined face, that exists exactly on the body where a face would be, as exists in Duncan's image, is one that is vastly more likely to be a real face than an imaginary one. Mr Stancak offers no reply to this.

2) Photo experts could examine both Davidson's Photoshop methodology and the resulting image and confirm whether or not the face derived from a clean photo process. This is a rather apparent elephant in the room that I feel Mr Stancak does not confront, nor does he offer the best arguments or approach by not doing so.

3) I don't think Mr Stancak realizes we are through the looking glass on this and those same experts could examine the image with the woman's face on a micro photo tech basis and see that the subtle photo properties of that face matches other real objects that were similarly brought out by Davidson's process.

4) Mr Stancak totally ignores that the facial posture of that face matches other known activities seen in the same animated gif. When Davidson's gif is run it shows a woman holding her purse with both hands up by her face. The face itself is obviously looking down into that purse being held up to it. This is a corroborating behavioral forensic dynamic that makes the suggestion the woman's face had all these confirming forensic factors by pure chance, and was an imaginary image that just so happened to do all these things, in the impossible range.

5) The specific facial features are anatomically precise, which is unlikely in pareidolia images. (Also ignored)

6) There's a clearly visible pair of woman's style eyeglass rims on Prayer Woman's visible glasses. This will also be confirmed by expert photo analysts. (Also ignored)

7) This entire debate is silly because once the best photo experts got hold of the Wiegman Film and applied the best modern technology to it they would confirm everything I've written and end the issue. The Prayer Man claim is doomed by science.

Sorry, but you can't ignore this condemning scientific proof and just offer another discussion of pareidolia. Nowhere in Mr Stancak's reply is there any attempt to explain why Davidson's Photoshop technique wasn't valid or why the more than obvious image of a woman's face wasn't the clean result of that valid process.

Brian:

I have presented two darker images and one bright image, so you cannot say that you do not see it. You see the content of the bright picture well. Please note one extra face located below the top margin in the left corner of the last picture in my previous post. This is a problem, isn't it: there are faces at improbable locations in the noisy parts of the old picture. Naturally, Duncan has cut off anything above your female head - the true Prayer Man and also the one illusory face shown in my previous post.

You write "Photo experts could examine both Davidson's Photoshop methodology and the resulting image and confirm whether or not the face derived from a clean photo process."

Brian, please, bring on the experts. You write they would confirm all what you claim, however, no one has yet. We want to see the experts's statements. We also want to see the whole process of your (Duncan's) analysis: what generic Wiegman's picture you took (a link), what part of the doorway you cut, which tools and in which order and intensity have you used. One of the basic principles of any research work is the reproducibility: we need to able to replicate the path Duncan or whoever went to produce exactly this image. If not, the final product can be an error or even worse, a fabrication. Therefore, I ask you again to provide the details allowing us to evaluate what methods were used.

"Once the best photo experts got hold of the Wiegman Film and applied the best modern technology to it they would confirm everything I've written and end the issue".

Ok, Brian, when will it be? Why haven't you already asked the best photo experts to analyse the picture (but which picture - we still do not know what was the generic picture).

"Nowhere in Mr Stancak's reply is there any attempt to explain why Davidson's Photoshop technique wasn't valid or why the more than obvious image of a woman's face wasn't the clean result of that valid process."

Brian, please post or link the original Wiegman's frame from which your alleged female has been produced, and please give us details about the methods. If you give us these details, I will be able to comment on the validity of Duncan's picture. We need to know in particular what was the original Wiegman's still (there are multiple version of it), what resolution it had and whether it was resized and using which algorithm, what section of the doorway has been cut and why, in particular why the space above the alleged head was not analysed, what tools (brightness: what intensity, contrast: what ratio, any other tool?)

"There's a clearly visible pair of woman's style eyeglass rims on Prayer Woman's visible glasses. This will also be confirmed by expert photo analysts. (Also ignored)"

Ok, Brian: the eyeglass rims are only your subjective impressions, aren't they?. Why then you propose it as a fact? When will it be confirmed by expert photo analysts? I am pretty sure that a photographic experts would try to politely explain that this dark area of the doorway cannot show you details you claim to see (eyeglasses, fingers in your other post). Even if you "see" them, other people would not see them like you do - you therefore assume they are either 1) dumb, 2) ill minded towards your theory, 3) or both. Well, this type of reasoning belongs to the Louisiana State Mental Hospital, Jackson, not to the EF.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Andrej:

You aren't answering my points. You are answering your own arguments not mine.

You are not answering the point that there are grades of evidence. Your dark images are inarguably a lower grade of evidence. They are not the best available images and therefore are not the best available arguments. The best arguments can only be made from the best images and you have failed to provide that. Since you have not shown why Davidson's sharp image of a woman's face is not the best image you therefore have no right to deny its use or the making of arguments based on it. Frankly I think common sense dictates that sharper, clearer images take evidentiary precedence over more opaque, blurry ones. The arguments I am making are based on those better images and cannot be ignored or responded to with irrelevant inferior images. It can be said blurry images create blurry arguments and sharp ones create sharp arguments.

It is clear to me that we exist in an age where corporate influence has affected science. There are such experts but they tend to not want to expose themselves to corporate/government persecution for dealing in anything Kennedy Assassination. So even though the disproving of Oswald being in the doorway would work in the government's favor technically, they still don't touch it because it is absurd in general. The claim is so absurd it is simply below them.

I find your request to reproduce Duncan's image less than sincere since Davidson/MacRae already produced that evidence in adequate detail before it was deleted. Furthermore the CTRL + enlarging of the cited image by Kamp reproduces it well enough that we should be past that request and talking about what it shows. Your input is regressive.

In my opinion Mr Stancak's demands above are obfuscation because we have produced references that show most of what he asks already. Even worse during the original discussion the challengers made a similar demand for Davidson's metadata methodology. When he produced it and satisfied that demand the opposition got quiet and did not respond to what it showed. What it showed was Davidson had conducted a valid scientific methodology that simply involved depositing the raw Wiegman Film into Photoshop with some contrast adjustments. This still hasn't been acknowledged and now we are back to the same demand even though Davidson already answered it.

Meanwhile if you do the CTRL + enlargement of Kamp's image that I linked you will see two precisely symmetric eyeglass frames under Prayer Woman's eyes. Impossible for pareidolia and unanswered by the demanding Mr Stancak. He also fails to answer how an imaginary image managed to repeat behavior that even the opposition admits Prayer Woman is doing. They say she is raising a camera or mug to her face. It's a purse. Therefore the fact Duncan's face is clearly peering down towards that object constitutes forensic reinforcement that the image is real.

No answer from Stancak on how an imaginary face ended up precisely where a face should be on Prayer Woman's body? Quite a coincidence!