• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Guest Duncan MacRae

PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

1,094 posts in this topic

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Hey pal, it wasn't me misinterpreting what you said that started this mess. It was you misspeaking!

Go to your post I first responded to (#404) and point out where you referred to Duncan's image. You can't because you didn't. You said it was Chris Davidson's image. His image that he said showed a woman's face.

In my reply to you I posted Chris Davidson's image, that he said showed a woman's face. I told you it was Chris Davidson's image. I told you where Chris posted it. And you responded by saying it was irrelevant. And that I was being foolish.

And now you have the nerve to tell me and everybody else that I misinterpreted what you said? Instead of just dropping it? :rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The onus is clearly towards discussing what Duncan's image shows.

Now that we've cleared that up I encourage you to feel free to answer what I have been saying from the beginning.

I also want to add that Mr Stancak's example of pareidolia proves why Duncan's face is real rather than disproves it. What I think he's referring to as an imaginary face is too faint and is also outsized compared to Prayer Woman's face. It has no body precisely associated with it like Prayer Woman's face and doesn't have symmetric proportion to its features. If anything it reinforces what I am saying and shows a good example of real pareidolia compared to the real image of a face and the important differences. I'm afraid Mr Stancak is not paying careful enough attention to the particulars of the things he presents.

Go to the "Why is the area above excluded?" image in post #323 in this link and enlarge it with CTRL + and you will see the face in question. This is the best and only evidence that must be discussed directly and is what my arguments are based on:

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

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian:

[Removed}

It is obvious that you know that Duncan's picture contains a wishful suppression of the other head just above the one you claim, and you are not even ashamed. You know that no expert has ever confirmed or will confirm anything you wrote about this picture. You ignore any request to present original data. You do not understand that other researchers have full right to ask for the original picture you or your collaborators used. You place yourself as the one who decides what evidence is the best, however, you have not demonstrated your expertise in anything. You do not understand that the purpose of the forum is to mutually check results else it is very easy to commit a mistake. You only refer to the work of other people who themselves do not defend the case because they know they would come short. You yourself have not produced a single result, you only criticise the work of other researchers. You have no intention to collaborate. You think that only your view is correct, but this best view cannot be verified. It therefore can be discussed ad nauseam without any resolution. Who do you think will play this game with you? You had your chance but you have forfeited.

I hope that the administrator this time not only delete your messages but your entire profile. Until then I am withdrawing from posting on EF as I would feel embarrassed to be in your company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stancak:

I was mistaken: it is not your reasoning what belongs to the Louisiana State Mental Hospital, Jackson, it is you. It is obvious that you know that Duncan's picture contains a wishful suppression of the other head just above the one you claim, and you are not even ashamed.

You are just repeating the elongated forehead claim while ignoring the explanation of why it isn't a valid refutation of the woman's face captured in Davidson.

Duncan did not cut the forehead off to suppress evidence. He merely cut the frame to present just the woman's face. I know the challengers really need the elongated forehead to be something that shows the clearly-apparent woman's face to be invalid. In my mind they desperately need that extra forehead to somehow invalidate the woman's face exactly because it is pretty strong evidence.

I have repeatedly explained that Davidson/MacRae posted a frame by frame breakdown of Davidson's animated gif over on Duncan's site. That breakdown showed each frame of Davidson's animated gif in sequence. You could see that the extra forehead seen in Duncan's image was Prayer Woman's forehead being carried over to each ensuing frame and staying in the same place as she moved downward. You can't just ignore this Mr Stancak. It was plain as day in Davidson's frame by frame break down. You can see and measure where the forehead was in the first frame and watch it as it stays in the same place as a double exposure in the ensuing frames. The elongated forehead has a perfectly understandable explanation that was proven by Davidson's frame by frame analysis. The elongated forehead had been scientifically proven to NOT be evidence of the invalidity of the woman's face. As I explained, the face is separate; it is due to the sharp frame allowing a better image; and it is NOT related to the elongated forehead in any dismissive evidentiary manner. The elongated forehead double exposure is strictly confined to the gif process and the woman's face is confined to Wiegman's steady frame. You can't conflate the two. You, Mr Stancak, are ignoring good evidence backed by proof and simply re-entering your elongated forehead claim without discussing all the intervening facts. If Mr Davidson posts his frame by frame analysis again you will see that everything I wrote is exactly correct and backed up by the facts.

I would also say the Education Forum should impose a rule that the board can't be held hostage or blackmailed by the threat to leave the board if other members are allowed to stay. Especially in this circumstance where it is clearly being used to avoid giving answers to valid arguments.

You know that no expert has ever confirmed or will confirm anything you wrote about this picture.

To the contrary. Obstinate Prayer Man/Murphy backers are foolish because enough evidence has been shown to realize that once any top qualified photo analyst gets the Wiegman original it will show exactly what I am saying and confirm it in spades. They are reckless because they are setting up their own destruction. I have already explained, the challengers have not refuted Davidson's methodology nor have they explained why the woman's face is not part of the Wiegman original brought out by Davidson's Photoshop process.

You ignore any request to present original data.

The original thread was well known and well participated in by yourself. If the original images I am referring to is what you mean by "original data", that isn't fair. I can't produce data that other people possess and deleted. Meanwhile you have failed to credibly respond to the images we have shown.

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do not understand that other researchers have full right to ask for the original picture you or your collaborators used.

Just as much as we have a right to demand responses to those original images. I'm not sure you realize we have shown several of those originals already and done extensive discussion of them. What you post here is not a valid response to that material and you are demanding something that has at least partially already been provided. I have repeatedly referenced the main original MacRae enlargement in Kamp's post #323 in this thread. You not only did not respond to what I pointed out in that image but you now demand I produce it and say I have failed to provide it.

You place yourself as the one who decides what evidence is the best, however, you have not demonstrated your expertise in anything.

I disagree. I have seen no one else who realized the elongated forehead was a double exposure and carried over into the ensuing frames. I also have not seen anyone else who realized the specific reason the woman's face shows up so clearly in that one frame is because it is a steady shot. Sorry, but unless someone else can show better that puts me in that spot - even if I have to point it out myself. I would also add that the best evidence has an objective value on its own and is usually defined as that which cannot be refuted. If you look at your entries, besides threatening to leave the board, you haven't disproven those facts. And they are facts and I can prove them once we can access the full original image portfolio.

You do not understand that the purpose of the forum is to mutually check results else it is very easy to commit a mistake. You only refer to the work of other people who themselves do not defend the case because they know they would come short. You yourself have not produced a single result, you only criticise the work of other researchers. You have no intention to collaborate. You think that only your view is correct, but this best view cannot be verified. It therefore can be discussed ad nauseam without any resolution. Who do you think will play this game with you? You had your chance but you have forfeited.

That is incorrect. I would suggest simply sticking to my facts and arguments instead of personal defamation. It is incorrect to say my arguments can't be verified. If you simply followed-through on what I was saying you would see it is correct. I think you start with the premise that what I say cannot be correct and don't bother to investigate what I'm saying. What I'm saying is correct and it can be verified by the evidence I'm pointing to. My references were clearly stated. If we could retrieve Mr Davidson's frame by frame analysis of his animated gif you will see the elongated forehead is a simple double exposure caused by Davidson's gif process. It cannot be legitimately used to deny the validity of the woman's face. Meanwhile since the elongated forehead was your only criticism, and it now stands as invalid, it is actually YOU who can't back up his arguments. The long and the short of everything you write here is you haven't answered for the woman's face, nor have you made any attempt to answer why it can't be pareidolia from the more than adequate original evidence we have presented.

You can usually tell who is right by who discusses the direct facts and evidence and who discusses the discussion. I have clearly presented a firmly argued case of evidence on this subject that Mr Stancak has given almost no answer to short of calling for more evidence. The evidence we did produce verified what I was saying. The steady, clear Wiegman frame is the one with the sharply-defined visible woman's face. This is because the camera landed by chance on a steady frame and the film was therefore able to absorb more subtle data or imagery. This explains why the face doesn't appear until that one frame. It is a perfectly sensible explanation that fits the facts and hasn't been disproven by the Prayer Man advocates.

I hope that the administrator this time not only delete your messages but your entire profile. Until then I am withdrawing from posting on EF as I would feel embarrassed to be in your company.

Ridiculous. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with what I posted. It is all accurately based on the prior original evidence and sound observations that were based on it. If we could reproduce those original references they would confirm what I am saying and also show that threats to leave the board are ridiculous and not justified.

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian,

I don't have a dog in this fight.

Andrej posted this to you:

"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?"

This is the only way to accomplish what you want to do. If you really want to convince people of the merits of your argument, you have to do this. You can't just say "if a photo expert sees this," because if he were an expert, he would want to see the original.

Also, I would ask Duncan if he could find his study.

This has been argued on a few forums over the years. Now you're here, and you have another opportunity to present your case. If i were you in your shoes, I'd hit the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admin Beckett wrote:

" You can't just say "if a photo expert sees this," because if he were an expert, he would want to see the original. "

Ms Beckett, I would like to mention that you remonstrated me for a lack of politeness to Mr Stancak but then tolerated a comment by Mr Stancak that I belonged in a mental hospital. I'm just pointing this out.

In all fairness I have said much more than what you quote me as saying above. Mr Stancak has avoided answering most of it. You are taking me to task for not providing enough original material. I'm not sure you are reading this debate, but I have provided, referenced, and quoted the image Mr Stancak is calling for several times and made evidentiary arguments about it. Mr Stancak did not answer those arguments but instead called for me to post the image in question and challenged my fitness for the board for not posting it. This is after I had linked the main image in question several times. Now you are also calling for me to post this original image.

The image in question is in Kamp's post #323 on page 22 of this thread underneath the caption "Why is the area above excluded?" When CTRL + is tapped on this image it enlarges it to useful size.

I cannot reproduce Davidson's frame by frame analysis. For some reason Duncan decided to destroy his own evidence by strangely deleting the thread it was in. If Davidson could repost it here it would be useful.

Lack of good presentation is a two way street and Mr Stancak conspicuously refused to answer my point that it is highly unlikely an imaginary face would perfectly appear where a real face should be. Ms Beckett, Mr Stancak sees the woman's face I am referencing only he insists it is pareidolia (a chance image that forms by accident like faces in clouds). Only the problem is that face is precisely where a face would be on Prayer Man's body. It also possesses internal features I described in credible forensic detail that also dismiss the possibility of the face being pareidolia. Mr Stancak's response to this was to ignore it and accuse me of not providing adequate material. If you take no sides on this I would suggest it is only fair to call those participating on their failures equally and ask Mr Stancak to account for his more than obvious failures, since they are very definitely what lacks the most here since they do not depend on the originals you mention and are independent of them. Not to mention the fact I have already provided the originals from which those points were made.

When faced with the accurately-described evidence Mr Stancak tried to say the woman's face was discredited by the elongated forehead. When the Davidson frame by frame analysis is produced it will show the elongated forehead is a double exposure due to a quirk in Davidson's gif process and is completely unrelated to the woman's face. It will show that it can't be used as an excuse to deny the woman's face or its credibility as Mr Stancak is doing.

Kamp's image on page 22 provides enough original evidence to show that an expert will comfirm two plainly apparent symmetrical eyeglass frames surrounding Prayer Woman's eyes. Do you realize I have already provided the original evidence you call for and Mr Stancak has failed to respond? Also that same image shows fingers with slits between them and knuckles on the glowing hand that Stancak was making lengthy computer graphic analyses over to prove it was a camera. Also ignored when correctly referenced and shown.

Using that same image on page 22 I posted in lengthy detail why the woman's face can't be imaginary like Stancak was claiming. He ignored that reasoning, refused to answer it, and returned with a demand that I produce the original, even though I was clearly referencing that original as shown in Kamp's post. He also added I should be in a mental institution. Hmm.

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MacRae-Doyle-Lamson.jpg

Hairline%20and%20ear.jpgHairline-1.jpg

[...]

It looks like someone has photoshopped-in the too-large face of Mary Tyler Moore where Oswald's white T-shirt is.

And why would she be looking in that direction when everyone else is looking down the street?

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raise.gif

Dumb question to everyone,

Will someone please ask Wesley Buell Frazier who Prayer Man is? (or has it already been done?)

Buell was standing at the top of the steps at this time, right? He's been identified in Wiegman, Couch, and Darnell, right? In this amazing GIF above (BTW, where is Chris Davidson?), Billy Lovelady is going down the steps, and PM is straightening up or going up the steps. The right elbow in strong sunlight to PM's left is Buell Frazier's elbow, right? (or he's farther back in the shadow) In other photos, WBF is looking in PM's direction. If I had the computer skills of a five-year old, I would include those photos in this comment to make it more clear what I'm saying.

Someone on Ed Forum must know Mr. Frazier or how to get in touch with him. It seems the last few years that he is amenable to queries. But most likely he has not seen these clarified photos. Which may jog his memory.

I'm not very good at asking strangers questions out of nowhere. There must be a good way to go about it. If it were me talking to WBF, I would just jump in there with what I think, "Was that Jack Edwin Dougherty standing to your right in the shadow, with a coffee cup in his hands at the end of the parade?" And it should probably be an open-ended question.

Many of the great investigators who have done the groundbreaking work on PM (hats off to you, really) really want him to be Lee Oswald, who, in my opinion, is a great hero who was twice assassinated. He tried to stop JFKA more than anyone, and was murdered for his efforts. First his body, then his character was assassinated.

I believe the PM study has already borne great fruit, especially for me. If only for all the photo graphic evidence that has been compiled.

But dig this, if PM is Jack Dougherty, it is massive, YOOOCH as Donnie Dumpster says. JED testified that he was near the 5th floor elevators when the shooting occurred. Though Williams, Jarman, and Norman didn't see him when they ran to that side, the west, then the north, side of the building. And JED didn't see or hear them. Because he wasn't there. JED was the mini-boss over Troy West and Eddie Piper who controlled the elevators for, they thought, Roy Truly and Ochus V. Campbell. Before that, up to 12:15, JED was a low man (with Piper) on the totem pole of a group of 4-6 that went through the 6th and 7th floors, clearing out potential witnesses. They only had to run off Bonnie Ray Williams, Jr. Loy Factor had it right about the end-result of this little part of the operation ----- Mac Wallace in the SE window, LF in the SW window, LHO one or two windows east of LF.

It's a long story, too long to explain here. I've been drafting a letter to Bonnie Ray Williams III for about a year. His father passed away in the late 1990s. I believe BRW II left a lot of material behind, and his son BRW III may be amenable to the right searcher.

If Jack Dougherty is PM, it is very big. Because of all the sort of negative clues that JED left behind with his contradictory, crazy testimony, it exonerates LHO from shooting Kennedy if JED was on the front landing where he said he was NOT. Negative Template. A ton of it.

P.S. This doesn't look so clear to me now. Anyway, could someone PLEASE ask the living W. Buell Frazier who PRAYER MAN is?! He was right there.

Edited for correct spelling of Jack Edwin Dougherty. It's not Daugherty. Thanks, Ian.

Edited by Roy Wieselquist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, BWF (not WBF) was asked the question at a recent conference he was attending (in the last year or so) and BWF said he couldn't recall who it was that was standing there and that the photograph was too blurry for him to figure it out.

Jack Dougherty is an interesting character too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian,

Thanks for that. It figures someone would have asked Frazier about PM.

You have the Kennedy wit: "Jack Dougherty is an interesting character TOO..." I'm still chuckling and I'll always remember how it's spelled. Funny thing is I've known several Doughertys who spelled it right. But with anything from the South, I figure they mangle it. "When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you." which is me... suffering from reverse psych projection.

(BTW, everyone, it's WIEgman, not Weigman. I've seen it both ways so much, had to go and look it up and commit it to memory.)

Looking at all the pics of Dougherty I could find, I'm convinced Prayer Man is JED. Unusually long arms, and proportionally narrow shoulders. And I have a ton of evidence previous to that.

Edited by Roy Wieselquist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've zero doubt that the image of the woman's face on PMs body posted above is a photoshop which has been done intentionally to continue this ongoing debate about nothing. There is no way that face came from any of the original images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roy,

Good stuff!!!

Can you post the pics you have of JED please? I'm sure a lot of people here would be extremely interested in them since he seems to be such an elusive character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've zero doubt that the image of the woman's face on PMs body posted above is a photoshop which has been done intentionally to continue this ongoing debate about nothing. There is no way that face came from any of the original images.

You should read the thread better. There's no question that the image Duncan enlarged from Davidson was the product of Photoshop. This isn't in dispute. Davidson openly posted his Photoshop methodology with a screenshot of his settings. "Photoshop" is synonymous with fakery however it is a valid photo analysis tool capable of valid functions. If you are suggesting Davidson faked his animated Wiegman gif he already disproved that. When a challenge was made of his methodology Davidson posted a screenshot of his Photoshop settings and showed everything he did. He simply adjusted for higher contrast separation and brightness and deposited the raw Wiegman Film into it. Whether you realize it or not this is a valid process that does not add or alter anything in the base image. In other words Davidson used a valid method and got valid results. Those who challenged Davidson were awfully quiet after he posted his methodology.

Meanwhile I just realized that after making arguments that the woman's face was pareidolia and the elongated forehead disqualified it (both false) Mr Stancak then went on to use the image he had just gone to lengths to condemn to say it had "Oswaldian" features. So the image is worthless when we show the obvious face of a woman is exactly that, but quite good enough at the same time for Stancak to credit it with being "Oswaldian" - based on the forehead he had just ridiculed as bad evidence. Hmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.