Jump to content
The Education Forum

Richard Gilbride

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Richard Gilbride

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,633 profile views
  1. For JFK's 99th birthday I was invited to give a slideshow at a church in New Hampshire. The presentation went great, but much to my dismay the slides didn't reproduce well onto the video I was hoping to save this event on. So my youtube dreams were dashed. I've finally had the time & space to put together a PDF of that lecture, and have just posted it at my website. It's basically an encapsulation of my TSBD research. For your reading pleasure, it's under LECTURES at http://www.jfkinsidejob.com
  2. This is over. Those who continue to believe that PrayerMan might possibly be Oswald live in denial of demonstrable scientific fact- height comparisons prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the figure is too short to be Oswald. What a shame that acknowledging the obvious has become a political process, that objective JFK truth is based upon tribal allegiances. As if it were a popularity contest. As if mob rule decided what is true, and not the spark of Reason. Sean Murphy failed to do a height analysis, which should have been among his first criterion. He mistakenly assumed, like everyone else for the next two years, that PrayerMan was in the corner of the alcove- which seemed to explain his all-too-small appearance in Darnell. And it took a spark from Albert Doyle to show that this assumption was wrong- Wiegman unequivocably shows that PrayerMan was at the front of the landing, and simple height comparisons can be made with both Frazier and Lovelady. The figure is too short to be Oswald. By a lot. Acknowledging this obvious fact entails abandoning the cult of Sean Murphy- whose hypotheses are treated like the prophecies of Quetzalcoatl- and accepting the unpopular insights of Albert Doyle- a hard-nosed and perceptive researcher who's done his homework on this issue and has the courage of his convictions. For many, it entails admitting that they made a mistake- which many will not bring themselves to admit. Not quite yet. The ROKC forum has made PrayerMan the centerpiece of their efforts, yet as they advanced their agenda they continually found room for disparaging other researchers, for stifling the spirit of discussion in a cesspool of immorality. They ignored the holy law that you reap as you sow. Whatever humiliation they feel now is fully deserved. It is a gift, by the way, a necessary ingredient for true character growth. And profound change there is warranted, for the ROKC forum to survive. I mean this in all seriousness. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom. The filth and denigration must end or your forum will end. Do you think that Don Jefferies, or Carmine Savastano, or Paul Trejo, or Greg Burnham would dispute that? Do you think that Duncan MacRae, Albert Doyle, and Richard Gilbride- three of ROKC's most reviled researchers- that we are the bad guys in this PrayerMan affair? For standing up to the ROKC goons, for delivering the sobering message that Quetzalcoatl's castle was built on sand? ******************************************************************* I have another complaint, and this deals with the twisted interpretation of Fritz's notes "out with Bill Shelley in front" as indicative of Oswald (as PrayerMan) watching the motorcade with Shelley. Which a dozen people posting does not mean that this interpretation becomes true. And which the lunchroom hoaxers, in their wishful thinking, employ as supportive of a Baker-Oswald meeting on the landing. This Fritz note is immediately preceded by "claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in to 1st floor had lunch", a chronological sequence which is corroborated by Bookhout's solo report (WR p. 619), which says that Oswald stated he stood around with Shelley just before he left the building. Which gets further corroboration from Holmes' testimony (VII p. 302) that Oswald said "my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees... Then I just went on out in the crowd..." Which gets further corroboration from Jarman's HSCA interview (p. 2), a second-hand account which mistakenly recalled Lovelady saying that "Mr. Truly told the policeman that Oswald was alright, that he worked there, so Oswald walked on down the stairs." Furthermore, Baker's affidavit failed to mention meeting Oswald on the landing. Which implies that the lunchroom hoax would have been concocted while Truly & Baker were searching the roof. This is the type of logical connection that is missing in the brain circuitry of the lunchroom hoaxers. With the implosion of the PrayerMan myth, the hoaxers are forced to beat a retreat back to "3rd or 4th floor" man. Another tree in Quetzalcoatl's vineyard which has never yielded any tangible fruit. I have already moved on, and have something big coming up at the end of the month which will take all I have.
  3. My Wiegman height study is now available at http://www.jfkinsidejob.com/pm/ Wiegman GIF 1 is approximately a car-length further back from the position that Darnell would advance to (75 feet from the midpoint of the TSBD landing), and Wiegman is in the neighborhood of 90 feet from Lovelady. Setting his camera transit at a 25 degree angle to the west wall (i.e. slightly to the right of Darnell, since the vertical border-strip shows just at the right of PrayerMan) the measured distance to PrayerMan is 91.7 feet. The top of Lovelady's head aligns with the bottom of the 6th peristyle down on the exterior wall. The top of PrayerMan's head (which could barely be discerned via my local library's printer- I double-checked with the brighter computer image on p. 566 of the giga-thread) aligns with the top horizontal arm of the 7th square peristyle down. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8916.4520.html Taking Lovelady to be 68 inches tall, for PrayerMan's height we get (19.0/20.2)(91.7/90)(68 inches) = 5'5" Wiegman GIF 2 seems to me only a bit closer, for even though the people appear slightly larger, the peristyles match the size and alignment of GIF 1. Taking Lovelady, down on the first step, as 70 feet from the camera, puts PrayerMan (at the same 25 degrees) at a distance of 72.6 feet. For PrayerMan's height we get (19/18)(72.6/70)(68 inches) = almost 6'2 1/2". Subtracting the 7 1/4" height of the step gives 5'7 1/4", still significantly shorter than Oswald. And Lovelady lost a little bit of height by craning his neck forward. If he lost one inch, PrayerMan calculates to 5'6". The Wiegman GIF is smaller than the Darnell image and hence has a greater percentage for error- from a half-width of a pencil line, or PrayerMan's poorly-lit image. Lovelady's uncertain posture is the major reason these Wiegman values are larger than those I obtained from Darnell. He is not standing at his full 5'8", especially in GIF 2, but had to be assumed as such for calculation purposes. This Wiegman study supplements the Darnell analysis, as a second and independent source for height comparisons, so that the question of whether PrayerMan is Oswald can be answered with a resounding no.
  4. http://jfkinsidejob.com/pm/ In the first photo, the entrance lobby radiator reflects in the plate glass and gives an accurate idea as to how wide the landing was. With a rectilinear correction for perspective, the radiator extends 7.2 cm and measures 4.6 cm high. Tony Fratini determined the radiator was about 30 inches high, comparing it to the 7-foot-high glass panel. We get (7.2/4.6) (30) = approximately 47 inches for the width of the landing, about 4 feet. This is a bit less than the 4.3 feet Fratini obtained from a scale drawing of the TSBD, and a bit more than the 3.5 feet deduced by Andrej Stancak from other sources. In the third sketch, PrayerMan & Frazier's relative positions on the 4 ft. x 11.5 ft. landing are shown, aligned with the vertical stripes behind them. Setting Frazier at 25 cm (i.e. 75 feet) from Darnell's camera position, PrayerMan measures at 25.5 cm (i.e. 76.5 feet). This will give a small correction factor to PrayerMan's height in the Darnell entranceway photo, (76.5/75) = 1.02 The compass arc demonstrates how nearly equivalent their camera-distances are. In the Darnell entranceway photo, the line representing the landing aligns with the peristyles and is demarcated upon the brightly-lit top stair riser, as Fratini illustrates on p. 506 of the PrayerPerson giga-thread at http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8916.4040.html The ceiling forms a 20 degree angle with the west wall, and a similar 20 degree line constructed from the landing line makes an angle close to 70 degrees with the west column- so 20 degrees is a good approximation for Darnell's camera-line with the west wall. Measured from the landing line, Frazier is 5.2 cm high and PrayerMan is 4.4 cm high. We get (4.4/5.2)(76.5/75)(72 inches) = about 62 inches, or 5'2", for PrayerMan's height. I'm not claiming to have laserlike precision with this height-estimation method. Frazier may be standing back from the edge of the landing and so only measure 5.0 cm high. In this case PrayerMan calculates to 5' 4 1/2". It would be a plus to get a height estimation by comparing PM with Lovelady in Wiegman. Computer graphics may yield a slightly more accurate estimate, but can't change the fact that PrayerMan is way too short to be Oswald. Hiring a professional photogrammetry analyst, or a computer graphics analyst, or doing a digital scan will not change that fact.
  5. Michael, You are ignoring the benchmarks I outlined in my synopsis of the Doyle-MacRae photo-argument. Their result is that you get a good approximation of PrayerMan's height, and it's far too short to be Oswald. That rebuts any propaganda to the contrary. Andrej, I meant what I said, that you did the best job I had seen anywhere explaining Doyle's sun-plane argument (even though I knew it was his). I still have hopes for you doing the correct computer graphics on this project. That's why I was "buddying" up to you, like a python, hoping to suffocate the ROKC propaganda out of you. Vanessa, I think you need to re-read this thread through to learn of the individual effort I attempted to get this film scanned. Robert, It is impossible that there is only a 3-inch difference in the TSBD individual steps, therefore it is impossible that PM is Oswald. Darnell's was a standard news camera without distortion. Bart, I'm in no hurry to meet your photo-demands. My next day off I will hopefully acquire Wiegman stills and add to those in the photo-section at jfkinsidejob.com. I'm not a geek, and doubt Albert Doyle is either, so maybe you should play to the crowd and show us the height differential between PrayerMan and Lovelady. Otherwise you're going to have to wait, and wait. Two years ago, one of your ROKC compatriots threatened physical violence upon me, which is a cybercrime. You are seriously-skewed if you think I'm hurting from that lunchroom hoax debate; I cleaned your clock on it here at the EdForum. ROKC has become a viper's nest that I will continue to fight against. Greg Parker has brought hooliganism to the JFK discussion table, his moral fiber completely dissolved in ethanol. He has forfeited his place as far as I'm concerned. I can hardly wait for your resignation, but don't do ultimatums, and have to work for a living.
  6. Bart Kamp: ...The fact that you are missing that Lovelady moves downwards (for leaving steps no doubt) and is NOT standing on the top landing is telling for your ability to interpret photo/film... Even when not having the balls or decency to admit your mistake? This is getting typical of your style, Bart, that you make a false accusation that I have to labor to defend against. Did you not read, or comprehend, the first line of my post, thanking Chris Davidson for showing me I had Lovelady's movements backwards? ...They look almost of the same height while standing on the 1st step down next to each other. You are just making it up that there is 4 inches difference without putting anything on the table to support this... Almost of the same height??? You need your eyes checked. Lovelady looks almost half a head shorter. Why don't you put something on the table to support this "almost" contention? Robert Prudhomme seems to be getting the point I made- the height disparity, that we easily discern in the movements of the Wiegman gif, between Lovelady & PrayerMan, cannot be attributed to the 5'9" Oswald. I walk in my integrity, Bart. Did John Barleycorn take yours? ************************************************************ The Doyle-MacRae photo-theorem may be summarised as follows: 1) Two forensic facts in the Wiegman gif oblige us to situate PrayerMan at the front edge of the landing. These are: a) a disproportionately-narrow portion of the west wall is visible left of his raised elbow. the glass panel's vertical border-strip is visible at the right of his shoulder. Trigonometric estimates from the Darnell entranceway image situate him about a foot and a half from the west wall. This is close to the minimum space required, from body proportions, for freely lifting the elbow. 2) We are further obliged, from Wiegman, to dismiss any possibility that PrayerMan is on the first step down. Lovelady, when he is on the first step, is several inches lower than PrayerMan, but he is slightly higher when he moves up to the landing. Not only does PrayerMan remain stationary, but the known heights of Lovelady & Oswald rule out any possibility that PrayerMan could be on the first step. 3) And so we have a firm basis for comparing the height of PrayerMan with the known height of Frazier, who was standing only about 3 feet away. They were both in the neighborhood of 75 feet from Darnell's camera, nearly equidistant. PrayerMan was close to a full head shorter and cannot be the 5'9" Oswald. **************************************** I don't think the community quite realizes the enormity of what Albert Doyle has achieved. Let me explain. He has saved us $10,000 or more in fund-raising, for getting a digital scan made of Darnell- rental, transport, operator fees, lawyer fees to gain access, haggling with the 6th Floor Museum- months of headaches coordinating getting the scan done, and many more months of computer analysis of the scan by film experts. He is a sharp, tough cookie and has put up with months of petty abuse. Duncan MacRae brought us the photo-acuity to spur the dissenting opinion, but Albert's cerebral-acuity and tenacity has captained the photo-theorem that gives the proper interpretation of the PrayerMan image- way too short to be Oswald. There's no "ungetting" the height argument once you "get it". That process works similar to this- I recently looked at a print of the Andrew Wyeth masterpiece Christina's World, while removing a storm window in a house I"m working on. The painting has special meaning to me because I gave my mother a copy 43 Christmases ago. I must have examined that painting a dozen times since then. This was the first time I ever noticed the ladder against the house on the hill. Now it's imprinted in my mind. http://www.whrtny.com/2009/02/christinas-world-at-moma.html
  7. Thanks, Chris- I had Lovelady's movements backwards. Bart, you do not address the point I raised. Lovelady, when he is on the 1st step, is a good 4 inches below the top of PrayerMan's head. If the 5'9" Oswald and the 5'8" Lovelady were both standing on the 1st step, their heights would be approximately the same. They're not, and so they're not both on the 1st step. Only Lovelady is. Ray, unbeknownst to your daddy, "Buttons" Doyle, I was playing Stancak like a python. You seem more interested in spreading malicious gossip, rather than admitting that Doyle's simple insights completely refute Murphy's misbegotten thesis. If Sean had done a height analysis before he went off and running with eliminating TSBD employees one by one, this PrayerMan debacle would've been nipped in the bud two years ago. Now it's grown into a politically-charged monster, where it's become dangerous to express a dissenting opinion, at the risk of ROKC's ClockworkOrange-style intimidation. Nincompoop blowhards who should be kept miles away from mainstream assassination research. They bet the farm on this and lost. It's going to take some serious character growth for them to acknowledge this loss and move forward.
  8. I have hopes of getting those drawings posted today. My webmaster said he received them. In the meantime, a fresh argument has occurred to me against the contention that PrayerMan is on the 1st step. So this is in addition to the preposterously-long legs that ensue from a body-proportion comparison with Tie Man. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8916.4520.html In the Wiegman gif, PrayerMan stays at the same level, whereas Lovelady raises himself from the 1st step onto the landing. While on the 1st step, the 5'8" Lovelady is several inches below the top of PrayerMan's head. But when he rises onto the landing, Lovelady is a couple of inches above PrayerMan's head. If PrayerMan were the 5'9" Oswald standing on the 1st step, he would appear approximately equal in height to the 1st-step Lovelady. And close to a step-riser shorter when Lovelady rises onto the landing. But we don't see that. We see a person shorter than the 5'8" Lovelady, standing on the landing throughout the Wiegman gif.
  9. Just a couple of thoughts while I'm waiting to hear from my webmaster, with 3 precise mechanical drawings ready to post. I got the same 20 degree angle between PrayerMan and the west wall that Drew Phipps & Albert Doyle arrived at- I don't know how they got theirs, but mine is close to 20.0 degrees. This led to only about a 1.02% adjustment (to PM's height because of increased distance) whether Darnell was set at 70, 75 or 80 feet from Frazier. Earlier, setting Darnell at only 46 feet, I had thought the adjustment was about 2%. So their positions, with respect to Darnell's camera, are even more accurately considered as "coplanar". Basic trigonometry told us, at 20 degrees and at the edge of a 4-foot landing, that PM was 1.5 feet from the west wall. But I haven't seen the following point yet mentioned: the shoulders are about one-foot in width, and a raised elbow adds a further one-foot to body-width. So when PM raises his elbow in Wiegman, the elbow is extremely close to the west wall. PM needs one-foot available for this elbow-raise and has to be at the edge of the landing, as far from the corner as possible- otherwise his elbow would knock against the wall.
  10. I made a dumb fatigue error last night (I have been working 10-hour days). Please disregard that number. Sorry if I misled you. I will post this mechanical drawing to my website in a couple or three days, under the heading PM? Also the drawing I did on top of the Darnell entranceway to obtain relative heights for PM & Frazier. I will add a fresh scale drawing of Darnell's 75-foot perspective, and any other drawings as needed. So, I obtained a full-page picture of the Entrance Lobby on p. 15 of WCD 496 at http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10896#relPageId=15&tab=page I drew lines along the top & bottom of the left-hand side of the radiator- these converge, off the page, at 7 degrees. I drew a vertical line through the blackmost portion of the near-corner rib of the radiator. The next line is drawn from the top near-corner to where the bottom line meets the aluminum border on the floor (i.e. a diagonal across the left face). To solve the perspective measurement problem, swing the far end toward the viewer so that both the right & left sides form a 90-degree angle. So construct a 90-degree angle with the near-corner vertical, and extend the diagonal until it intersects this newly-constructed line. All of this will be more easily grasped once you see the drawing. The radiator-width plus distance-to-glass-width measures in perspective (i.e. in the photo) at 5.4 cm; by swinging it toward the viewer it measures at 7.2 cm. The radiator-height stays at 4.6 cm. So we get a ratio to apply to Tony Fratini's 30-inch height measure: (7.2/4.6)(30) = 46.96 inches. This makes sense, because the width of the door seems to be 3.5 feet, in an 11.5-foot-wide entranceway, and it swings open with a cop in front of it still standing on the landing, as seen in Tony's last post on p. 613 at http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8916.4896.html We have to remember, in terms of error analysis, that Darnell's camera was some 75 feet away, and a variation in the landing width an inch or so either way would only make a miniscule difference- a hair's width on his entranceway photo. It seems that an accurate idea of the angle between PrayerMan and the west wall is called for. It looks like that can be figured out with the help of the vertical border strips and the ceiling angle.
  11. My preliminary result is 41.34 inches. Thanks John for getting me thinking about right triangles again, I knocked myself out with 3 other methods like the ancient Greeks. I will doublecheck my measures and explain my technique tomorrow, I think it's correct. There's a little bit more than a 4/3 ratio between the radiator height and distance of the near corner to the plate glass.
  12. I have noticed something quite unexpected that hopefully will lead to a precise estimate of the width of the landing. In the Entrance Lobby photo, the reflection of the radiator in the entranceway glass extends almost exactly to the edge of the landing. So that the distance calculation of the near-edge of the radiator to the glass gives the width of the landing. I'm working on getting a precise formula together, but taking the radiator to be 2.5 feet high, a 4-foot-wide landing seems a safe eyeball guess at the moment. See Robert Prudhomme's post #1799 on p. 120 at the famous PrayerMan thread at http://educationforum.iphost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=120(this link isn't cooperating- this is at the bottom of p.5 of the topics) On p. 116 you'll find Ray Mitcham's photo of the width of the stair treads. Robert's adjacent photo contains a modern-day landing but the red-line simulating the original width seems incorrect. Andrej, you don't seem to realize that putting Oswald with one foot down doesn't resolve the height question. Listen to what the phenomenon is telling you, rather than telling the phenomenon how to behave. And your graphic representation is not accurate. Where in Darnell is the bent knee in the sunlight? Where in Darnell is the soda pop bottle? The Wiegman gif is a 2-frame, 4-second differential that only seems like someone drinking. Andrej Stancak: Prayer Man's right hand was lit by the sunlight on a very small spot, and due to the natural blurring of the picture (distance, resolution, film material) this small bright spot got averaged with the darker part of the rest of his hand, causing the hand looking brighter than the forearm. Good one. This is the best explanation I've seen yet.
  13. Andrej, You are making a systemic error, presuming that your one-foot-down-one-foot-up graphic represents the 5'9" Oswald. The step is 7-1/2" high, so to conclude that your graphic represents the 5'9" Oswald, you are required to demonstrate a relation between Frazier & Oswald that shows the Darnell "Oswald" is only 5' 1-1/2" above the landing. Not just a relation between PrayerMan and his vertical strip, and between Frazier and his vertical strip. You are claiming "Oswald" is only 5' 1-1/2" above the landing, with no basis for comparison- just your say-so. Would you not object if I claimed "Oswald" was one step down, and actually 6' 4-1/2"?
  14. Ray Mitcham- Perhaps whoever believes the sun is striking PM's hand can explain the considerable difference in the RGB values. Ray, PM's forearm and hand are being illuminated by indirect sunlight. From a diffuse (non-pointlike) source such as the sun, a distinct intermediate zone- a sliver- between direct sun & deep shadow will impact the target. Like the penumbra during a lunar eclipse. There is a gradient of brightness across the width of this sliver. In the Wiegman gif the hand begins within this sliver and, during the motion, its brightness barely increases (to the naked eye)- this means that the hand remains the same (very small) distance from the direct sun. But the brightness of the forearm increases dramatically- it begins near the far edge of this sliver and ends at very nearly the same very small distance from the direct sun as the hand. So the overall hand-forearm motion is akin to a puppeteer, holding the hand-string still, but lifting the forearm-string. An intermediate sliver is a handy concept for Wiegman, since the shadows grow very deep very suddenly as you look into the alcove's west corner. Yet Darnell shows how scattered & reflected light modestly illuminates that corner- inside the lobby we get almost none, and it's impressive that the white radiator (highly-reflective) has been found. But the concept of an intermediate sliver doesn't apply as readily to Darnell- his film stock was evidently better at capturing low light levels. Although it's basically just a definition of convenience, imagining a 4-inch-wide intermediate sliver in Wiegman transfers over to Darnell (where it's not visibly obvious).
  15. Richard Trask, on p. 424 of Pictures of the Pain, estimates the Camera Car 3 distance in the pertinent Darnell footage as "some 70 feet from the closest point of the building." That correlates very well with the scale drawing on the inside cover of his book. For those without the book, a portion of that drawing is at jfkinsidejob.com on p. 4 of my essay. This sets Frazier, to a close approximation, at 75 feet from the camera. The height calculation via the Drew Phipps method remains the same, since we are talking the same 2% or so loss to PrayerMan's height due to perspective. PrayerMan's distance from the camera works out to (47/46)(75) = 76.6 feet. I have found a 3rd method for calculating height- really just a corollary of the Phipps method, using the vertical border-strips behind Frazier & PrayerMan- and won't elaborate on it here. The Wiegman gif contains two incontrovertible facts which lead to the same devastating consequence for the Murphy thesis. A copy is in the last post by Robin Unger on p. 566 of the Prayer Person giga-thread at http://jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8916.4520.html There is no bluffing around this consequence. 1) When PrayerMan lifts his elbow, so little of the dark-tiled west wall is visible left of his elbow, that he must be at or near the front edge of the landing. This is better appreciated by lookiing at the adjacent pictures Robin posted. The dark tile extends almost two full step-widths, about 1.5 feet, beyond the landing. 2) The vertical border-strip of the glass partition can be discerned at PrayerMan's right (the viewer's right), almost defining the right-hand edge of his body. Whereas in Darnell the vertical border-strip bisects PrayerMan, Wiegman's camera-line is slightly to Darnell's right. The distance from the sepia-colored brick column to the lifted elbow, and to the vertical border-strip, can be measured and compared. The lifted elbow is no greater than 25% of the distance to the vertical border-strip. For a 4.3 feet-wide landing with a 1.5 feet extra dark-tiled width, (5.8)(.75) = 4.35 feet, which tells us that PrayerMan is at the front edge of the landing. And his elbow is probably extending a little bit beyond it. And so we have two forensic facts in Wiegman that dovetail into the indisputable conclusion that PrayerMan is standing at the front edge of the landing. Which means a firm comparison can be made heightwise with Frazier, who was nearly coplanar with respect to Darnell's camera. A small draftsman's compass easily confirms this. I'm sure a computer-graphics specialist can arrive at a more precise determination than the result obtained from my aging mechanical-drawing skills, which put PrayerMan at about 5'4". With all due respect, imagining PrayerMan with one foot down on the next step fails to address the Doyle height argument. Not only is there a complaint due to body proportions- since PrayerMan would have preposterously-long legs (see the comparison with Tie Man in the last post on p. 517 at http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8916.4128.html) There is also the complaint that the added step-height would make him too tall to be Oswald. I do not have the measured step-height, but have made a rough estimate as follows (see Tony Fratini's picture of the empty entranceway on p. 511 at http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8916.4080.html): a standard US Mail box is 49.5 inches high, and about 3 inches above it is where the beveled edge of the base of the double-pillared column equals the height of the landing. So (52.5/7) = 7.5 inches per step, leading to the approximation that PrayerMan, if he were standing on the next step, would be 5'11 1/2", significantly taller than Oswald. This is a wonderful opportunity for someone, disposed to computer graphics, to give us a bird's-eye view of Darnell's camera position, and the landing, and the street-level view seen in Darnell and Wiegman; adding in the appropriate photogrammetry lines to help describe what I properly refer to as the Doyle-MacRae photo-theorem. Otherwise, the research community does not seem to me much better than a herd of thirsty wildebeest, ignorantly marching toward a river full of crocodiles. The mainstream media will eat us alive when the expensive digital scan proves that PrayerMan is not Oswald.
  • Create New...