• 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

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

Because, as I already explained, Davidson's animated gif shows a person holding an object in front of their face with both hands. Prayer Man advocates are doubting things they already admitted in public. They are openly saying an object is being lifted to Prayer Man's face only they say it is a camera or coffee mug. Meanwhile if anyone bothers to pay attention to credible forensic detail they would see Duncan's enlargement also brings out details in that object. It shows fingers with slits between them and knuckles. It is kind of weird to produce issue-ending evidence from the originals and describe it in accurate detail and then be patronized and given advice by persons who are ignoring those very things when produced. Sorry, but I don't think I am the one lacking here or needing advice. Bart Kamp said on ROKC "I see Prayer Man is manipulating something with both hands". The black object that is visible in Duncan's same blow-up is a woman's purse and the doubters are just going to have to get used to that. So Thomas is answering his own question while ignoring that I have already explained that Prayer Woman's eye direction is reaffirming behavioral forensic evidence that the face is real because it is attached to other known objects and actions in the image. This doesn't happen with pareidolia and is the superior evidentiary argument that Mr Stancak refuses to answer and threatens to leave the board over. Hmm. I'm not sure that Mr Graves realizes he is only detecting and pointing out my evidence yet failing to put the correct interpretation to it due to his automatic doubt.

Do people not realize that Thomas's joke about the face looking like Mary Tyler Moore is proof the image is real? It's a good observation. The woman's face does look a little like Mary Tyler Moore. - Which means that Mr Graves fully sees the face to the point of observing such detail.

I have to protest because Mr Davidson is being falsely accused of diabolically committing a hoax and inserting a Mary Tyler Moore-like face into the image. Those claiming this were the same people who challenged Davidson previously. Davidson responded by openly posting his Photoshop settings in a screenshot. The challengers responded the same way Mr Stancak responded. They ignored it. Yet here we are right back in the same spot with people accusing Davidson of something he has already proven he wasn't guilty of. Mr Graves is also referring to a white T-shirt that doesn't exist in any of the images.

Mr Graves commits another falsehood when he says the face is too large. Superimpose the face with other faces in the same Wiegman frame it and it matches their proportionality perfectly. (Which proves it is real and the opposite of what Mr Graves is contending)

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Administration has decided to lock this thread for 48 hours as a cooling off period. Please do not start any new threads dealing with this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have reopened this thread. Please post evidence that you have with respect to your position. Do not expect others to go looking for your evidence for you. It is your responsibility to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the below image under "Why is the area above excluded?" has been adequately linked several times. When the cursor and CTRL + is clicked on it, it enlarges the image to useful size.

MacRae-Doyle-Lamson.jpg

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

And note the throat and upper chest area in Darnell which is exposed.

Prayer Man.

Prayer-Man-in-Wiegman-ROKC-Scan-Nov-2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flashing two part gif below has also been adequately linked and those discussing it had no problem knowing what was being referenced.

I believe the demands for reference links were already met and a certain poster was refusing to answer the arguments made on them. Also when Sandy was finally able to understand that the photo in question was from the sharper image (which backs my point that the sharper image was responsible for the appearance of the woman's face) he suddenly dropped out of the debate.

It is my opinion that the person complaining about linked or posted images was using that complaint to avoid discussing what we did credibly show. Also that person tried to present inarguably inferior images that did not live up to the better evidence. I still feel the link complaint is a technical issue being taken advantage of in order to avoid the arguments and evidence that person was clearly making an effort to avoid. I feel I have satisfied making the best effort and also provided enough material to make the arguments I do. Instruction on how to post an image might be helpful. I can bring up the "Properties" url on my laptop but when I try to copy it my computer doesn't highlight and grab the url for some reason.

Also, the pareidolia argument shows that the person in question obviously did see the face from the links given. I have made some very good arguments why that face isn't pareidolia that the challenger refuses to answer - the main one being that a face that appears on a body exactly where a face should be isn't likely to be pareidolia but is instead very likely to be a real face. I'm not sure the best evidence is being objectively pursued here.

If Mr Stancak could isolate and post the image he thinks shows a good case of pareidolia and juxtapose it next to the woman's face I think it would show a good example of the opposite of what he is saying. That the pareidolia face is grotesque and conforms to random imaginary images and the woman's face on Prayer Man is precise and conforms to real anatomy (Not to mention the eyeglass frames).

It should be clarified for reference that the woman's face shown in Kamp's image is an enlargement of the sharper image shown in the two-part flashing gif.

" Dear Brian,

Obviously, I'm not talking about Davidson's GIF, or some "isolated image" posted by Duncan. "

So what is your point? We're talking about the proof of a woman's face from the Davidson animated gif. Please try to stay on the subject.

The isolated image you put in quotes is proof Prayer Man is a woman and therefore isn't Oswald.

Dear Brian,

When you say "the Davidson animated gif," I assume you're talking about the one below, yes? If so, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a GIF of "Prayer Woman's" face that Duncan put on this forum about a year ago, and which he deleted a short time later.

ONCE AGAIN, THE GIF, BELOW, IS NOT WHAT I'VE BEEN TALKING WITH TO YOU ABOUT ON THIS THREAD.

Raise.gif

Apparently you never saw the GIF I am talking about.

Unfortunately I can't show it to you. Why? BECAUSE DUNCAN DELETED IT A LONG TIME AGO.

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Brian:

I would like to apologise for my unfair and completely inappropriate reference to your health, and am glad that you carry on the discussion in spite of this insult. I will delete the rest of my criticism if I see that you are willing to discuss the matters in a technical and objective way, for now I remain cautious. Your last post gives me some hope that a reasonable discussion is possible, and therefore, I resume. I would prefer if you call me Andrej instead Mr Stancak. We fight fiercely on this forum, however, it is still a friendly bunch of people here.

I wonder if you would help me to locate the source image from which the woman face/figure has been obtained. The picture which you refer as the source image and actually the ultimate result is not the original Wiegman's frame (still, photograph). The reason for me wanting to see the large, untouched still is that I want to go the way you describe and reach or not the same result as Chris Davidson or Duncan have reported. I also have concerns about the space above the figure's head which would allow to say if the picture is a real and complete head or only some wishful selection. I realise that you may not be that skilled in computer graphics which is fully ok, and therefore, just please let me know if one of the following two frames would be the one showing the figure of your interest:

Could it be this frame?

wiegmantrulygrp-veryclear-fromdragootokh

Or would it rather be this frame?

wig133_full.jpg?w=529

If neither of these two pictures would be the ones which yielded the picture you promote, would you please either post or link the correct frame. We avoid the GIFs frames as they already have been extensively processed.

The reason for asking for this frame is that extensive processing or selective cropping may sometimes produce unexpected results, mostly various shapes. For instance, a simple step such as resizing can be quite aggressive and change the contours of objects. If a resampled image is then subject to brightness/contrast or other operation, it may suddenly start to show weird things. I am not saying that this happend in the case of the photograph in question, however, it is necessary to see the original picture without any lines crossing the face and without a corona highlighting the figure. The reason for posting two dark frames in my previous post was that these were unprocessed images, therefore, they contained original information not altered by my processing. These images need to be viewed for few minutes in a dark room to appreciate what the picture tells you.

I will come to the possibility of pareidolia later after it will be clear how the picture you are interested in was produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also wondering if the sharp frame wasn't Wiegman. If it is not I stand corrected, but it makes no difference because it still shows the woman's face. I would also like to know the precise identity of that photo, but in my mind it is secondary to the evidence it shows since it is a well-known image that no one has challenged. If you enlarge Sandy's sharp frame you'll see it possesses the woman's face and is the image from which Duncan got his enlargement.

Sandy's sharp frame is obviously from Davidson and is also obviously post-Photoshop since it is the only one of the images that shows the face. I would suggest your argument is with Photoshop since Davidson explained all he did was drop that sharp frame image into Photoshop with the brightness and contrast settings adjusted.

The best way to analyze Davidson's methodology is to examine it directly. Unfortunately Davidson has decided to not defend his finding according to its importance. Davidson found this evidence by accident when trying to use portal images to compare the heights of persons in the portal. It wasn't actually Davidson who found the evidence, it was Duncan MacRae who noticed the process Davidson used just so happened to make the face clearer on that one image. He enlarged Davidson's image and discovered what is inarguably a woman's face.

If neither of these two pictures would be the ones which yielded the picture you promote, would you please either post or link the correct frame. We avoid the GIFs frames as they already have been extensively processed.

. I think you already know the source was Davidson. I find it disingenuous for you to ask me for his source. I assume he deposited an untouched original into Photoshop that got those results independently according to the mechanics of the Photoshop process.

The reason for asking for this frame is that extensive processing or selective cropping may sometimes produce unexpected results, mostly various shapes. For instance, a simple step such as resizing can be quite aggressive and change the contours of objects. If a resampled image is then subject to brightness/contrast or other operation, it may suddenly start to show weird things. I am not saying that this happend in the case of the photograph in question, however, it is necessary to see the original picture without any lines crossing the face and without a corona highlighting the figure.

I don't see any reason to think excessive processing or selective cropping was done on the original. I'll bet if we ask Davidson he'll tell us he simply dropped an original of that photo into Photoshop. I think your suggestion that resizing drastically effected the original image can be sussed by simply looking at all the objects in the post-Photoshop image to see if any radical changes occurred. Again- however, I'm sure Davidson will tell us he did none of those things and simply dropped the original into Photoshop. I also don't think the lines make any difference since the image is between them and unaffected by them. Tough I wish they weren't there. Plus, I'm not sure "corona" means anything since the contrast improvement is equally distributed and the face appears as it is because of that contrast improvement.

Either of your two images above would probably serve since the Photoshop improvement was capable of bringing better brightness to Prayer Man. Your two originals give a false impression of what was available in the image. What appears as hopelessly faint and dark in the original can be recovered to the degree of Davidson's image with Photoshop processing that takes image traces that are too dark for the human eye and boosts them. Your images might be lower grade multi-generation images while Davidson used a better original. But there's something that can't be argued here, Davidson did use an original of the sharp image and did get that result. I think you are avoiding the inevitable with technical obfuscation myself and when we satisfy your demands they will prove everything I say.

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OSnpNZlNjbnpYWXc/view?usp=sharing

The original is from the DVD “Death In Dealy Plaza”

I copied the VOB files directly from the DVD.

Computer = Mac

I viewed the VOB files using this program “MPEG Streamclip” - QuickTime Pro works just as well, with both programs needing “QuickTimeMPEG2.component” for the viewing process.

I snapshot the frame as a PNG.

I can also export as PNG’s but not at 200% which is the size of the linked file.

The screenshot was captured using a gamma of 1.8

The frame is not cropped my me. This is what is supplied on the DVD.

There is no difference in quality (Mac wise) between a snapshot PNG and an exported PNG. (Believe me, I’ve tested this numerous times).

I believe the current frame/s being discussed on the forum were snapshot at 100%.

The photoshop process for this frame would have been the same as the others, although I believe I also used a "Topaz Labs plugin" contrast filter to try and bring out more detail in the shadows. There are dozens to choose from.

Bart Kamp did a good job in his collage trying to match whatever I had previously produced. He marked it "Hairline and Ear". Maybe he remembers his exact method for contrast adjustments, I don't.

As far as I could find, this was the closest I could get (generation wise) to some type of documented version.

What generation is it? I don't know.

The 16mm Wiegman film, more than likely, was supplied by the 6th Floor Museum for the T.V. show.

The rest is up to those still interested.

Good Luck,

chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davidson said: " Bart Kamp did a good job in his collage trying to match whatever I had previously produced. He marked it "Hairline and Ear". Maybe he remembers his exact method for contrast adjustments, I don't. "

I continue to be perplexed by Davidson giving positive affirmation to Bart Kamp when Kamp's purpose in that collage was to prove the elongated forehead, seen in the image Davidson just detailed the methodology of here, disproved the validity of his Photoshop process. Does Mr Davidson understand that he just gave positive approval to a person whose post and images were intended to disprove the validity of the information he has just posted and prove the image wasn't credible? When I criticized Mr Davidson on Duncan's forum for not giving enough consideration to the value of what he presents he chastised me. This is, unfortunately, another example.

As to the elongated forehead, Mr Davidson produced a frame by frame breakdown over on Duncan's forum that showed the progress of frames in the animated gif containing the woman's face. It was very clear from analyzing this sequence of frames that the elongated forehead was the product of the forehead in first frame carrying over to the ensuing frames as a double exposure. You can see it starts exactly where the forehead is in the first frame and ends up in the same spot in the frame with the woman's face. What Mr Kamp was trying to do was say this elongated forehead in the frame with the woman's face was proof that somehow that face wasn't valid. But, typical of Mr Kamp, he never explained exactly how? The double exposure is a quirk of Davidson's animated gif process and is separate from the actual woman's face itself that is part of the original photo from which that frame originated. Kamp is conflating apples and oranges according to photo analysis science by trying to compare those two and use one of them as an excuse to deny the other. Mr Kamp has full access to this discussion. I'd like to point out that after calling me out on this board with a swagger that when I showed up he chose not to participate.

I think if you read what Chris Davidson writes above he is basically saying he took a good frame from the 'Death In Dealey Plaza' video and simply dropped it untouched into Photoshop with the said contrast and brightness adjustments. So that would exclude the pre-emptive corruption of the image Andrej speculates above. So all the demands for sourcing have been reasonably met and there is good reason to believe a clean original was inputted into a valid Photoshop process that yielded the woman's face as an unintended result (meaning it wasn't even planned by its discoverer, making it even more valid).

I would also like to make the point that Chris Davidson is a generally accepted photo tech source on this site and his entries are usually not challenged.

Mr Davidson: Are you saying the sharp frame in question was from the Wiegman Film?

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I quit responding is because the thread was locked.

But I see no reason to continue with the dialogue here. I will explain why.

Raise.gif

Chris originally saw a woman's face that, in the above GIF, is located ABOVE the TOP blue line. Her mouth is hidden by the bright spot. In the above GIF, her face is in the LARGE photo, not the small inset. I agreed with Chris that it did indeed did look like a woman's face, but that I didn't believe it was.

Then Duncan's presented A DIFFERENT FACE. And not different just because it was in a different frame. A completely different face.

Duncan's face, in the above GIF, is located between the two lines. (Compared to above the top line for Chris's face.) Duncan's face appears on the smaller inset in the above GIF.

I don't agree that Duncan's face looks like a woman's. To me it looks out of proportion. But even if I did believe it looks like a woman's face, I would still not believe it is.

Now, before anybody screams foul, I must point out that I realize Chris's face is not fully above the top blue line. The part hidden by the bright spot is below the top blue line. So Chris's face is roughly centered about the top blue line.

Now, let's suppose for a moment that both Chris's face and Duncan's are the same. If so then we need to accept that when the woman raises the bright spot, she also raises her head by roughly four inches. We also have to account for the extra long forehead of Duncan's woman, which rises even higher than Chris's already-high face. Brian says it's from a double exposure. If so, how does one explain the even-higher height of the forehead from the other exposure? And the fact that nothing else appears double exposed?

Then, as if that weren't enough, we have the fact that IIRC with little or no adjustment we can make out what appears to be a man's face in another film. I believe the frame I'm referring to is represented by the middle photo in this collage (which probably has been adjusted some):

Hairline-1.jpg

Taking all of this into account, I conclude that the "women's" faces are nothing but "faces in the clouds" (pareidolia) produced by tweaking the contrast/brightness of the image. The fact that two different faces can be made this way should serve as a cautionary note to everyone.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OSnpNZlNjbnpYWXc/view?usp=sharing

The original is from the DVD “Death In Dealy Plaza”

I copied the VOB files directly from the DVD.

Computer = Mac

I viewed the VOB files using this program “MPEG Streamclip” - QuickTime Pro works just as well, with both programs needing “QuickTimeMPEG2.component” for the viewing process.

I snapshot the frame as a PNG.

I can also export as PNG’s but not at 200% which is the size of the linked file.

The screenshot was captured using a gamma of 1.8

The frame is not cropped my me. This is what is supplied on the DVD.

There is no difference in quality (Mac wise) between a snapshot PNG and an exported PNG. (Believe me, I’ve tested this numerous times).

I believe the current frame/s being discussed on the forum were snapshot at 100%.

The photoshop process for this frame would have been the same as the others, although I believe I also used a "Topaz Labs plugin" contrast filter to try and bring out more detail in the shadows. There are dozens to choose from.

Bart Kamp did a good job in his collage trying to match whatever I had previously produced. He marked it "Hairline and Ear". Maybe he remembers his exact method for contrast adjustments, I don't.

As far as I could find, this was the closest I could get (generation wise) to some type of documented version.

What generation is it? I don't know.

The 16mm Wiegman film, more than likely, was supplied by the 6th Floor Museum for the T.V. show.

The rest is up to those still interested.

Good Luck,

chris

Thanks, Chris, this is very useful. I did not have access to the picture you started with.

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to thank Chris for providing the link to the image which he has used in his animated GIFs, and for giving further details. I did not have access to this particular version of Wiegman's frame 133. I have downloaded the generic image which was used to show the alleged female face and analysed it with a simple tool called Smart Photo Fix in Corel PaintshopProX8. The tool allows to brighten or darken the whole image and to selectively increase or decrease the shadows and the light parts of the picture. The picture below is the crop of the doorway with the original, unprocessed picture in the left panel and the brightness correction added in the right panel. I have not resized the picture. So, now we can view properly the critical part of Wiegman's frame.

wf_2panels.jpg?w=803&h=627

The head area (right panel) clearly shows distortions which may have contributed to the confusion about this head. The next picture shows four panels. The bottom-right one is again the original picture, cropped to see the head and the body and arms with greater details. It is worthy to spend a minute or two just viewing the picture. I can see three heads in this picture, however, only one of them, in my view, is the true one. The head seen by Brian and Duncan is highlighted with blue lines in the top left panel. The head which in my opinion is true Prayer Man's head is highlighted with yellow lines in the top right panel. Please note that the two darker circular spots below the lower contour of the "yellow" head are actually the eyes in the "blue" head. The "Duncan-Brian's" head resulted by borrowing these two darker spots and combining them with the neck of Prayer Man (to create mouth and nose region in blue head) and with the mouth region of Prayer man's (yellow head) head to form the forehead in blue head.

4heads_wf.jpg?w=803&h=1046

There is also a third head which appears to be a photographic or digital artefact. It is highlighted wiith a red contour in the lower left panel. Since the "blue" and "yellow" heads share parts of the objects (e.g., the "eyes" in blue head), the figure becomes bi-stable. This phenomenon is a well known visual illusion, and can be exemplified with Rubin's (1915) Vase-Face illusion. If you view the picture below for a while, you may note a vase alternating with two female faces.

rvi.jpg?w=803&h=678

Thanks to Chris'es post, this story, in my view, comes to a resolution. The head which Brian and Duncan considered to be a genuine female head occurs in an area which appears to also show a digital artifact, although the artifact alone was not causing the perception of "Duncan's-Brian's" head. The perception of this face can be compared to pareidolia because here we attribute a sensible interpretation(face) to other shapes which in fact are not the shape we see. However, it may not be exactly pareidolia of the type as when completely random dots make us think that there was a face or a dog in the picture. It rather refers to a visual illusion due to its visual instability (bi-stability). All three factors (1. artifacts and low signal, 2. pareidolia, 3. visual illusion) contributed to the appearance of an object which looks like a human face.

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

wf_2panels.jpg?w=803&h=627

[...]

Thanks Andrej.

Like I said, Brian's "woman's head" was too big for his / her torso.

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


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