PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

[Guest Brian Doyle]

" 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.

[Sandy Larsen]

Brian,

Here is the animated GIF that you say is relevant. I agree that it is relevant.

This GIF consists of two alternating frames. Let's call the one that is more in-focus the Clear Frame, and the other one the Blurry Frame.

We can all see that the Blurry Frame shows Prayer Person holding the bright object up to his face. And the Clear Frame shows Prayer Person holding the bright object at chest level.

The pertinent question is, which of these frames did Chris discover his "woman" in? The answer is, in the Blurry Frame. We know that because the "woman" is shown with the bright object up to her face. Here is that very frame, as Chris introduced to us last May:

We can see that this is the Blurry Frame with Prayer Person holding the bright object up to her face. The area around Prayer Person (a circle) has been "enhanced" by Chris, basically by adjusting the brightness and contrast in that area.

For a height comparison, Chris also inserted a copy of Lovelady that he took from the Clear Frame. That is why this second Lovelady looks more clear than all the other characters.

If anybody wants to confirm that this is the photo Chris used to announce to the forum that Prayer Person was a woman, click here and scroll to Chris's original post, Post 265. In Post 269 he explains why he pasted the extra copy of Lovelady's in the photo. In Post 273 he explains what he did to get the "woman's" face to appear.

Brian claims that the Prayer Person "woman" in Chris's photo came from the Sharp Frame. We know that's not true because it is the Blurry Frame that has Prayer Person holding the bright object up to his face. I don't know why Brian is confused about this.

Now, If Brian knows of another Chris Davidson Prayer Woman photo that indeed did come from a more sharply focused, clear frame, he will have to produce it for us. Presumably we will get a really good look at the woman in that frame. (Otherwise why even bring it up?)

Brian makes a big deal of the fact that I see a woman in the photo. Somehow that proves that there really is a woman. Well, I also see Jesus in my fence. Does that prove anything? Yes, it proves that humans can make something out of nothing.

While it is true that I vaguely see the face of a woman, had I been shown the photo out of context -- not expecting to see a face -- I'd probably have said something like "I see a bright object with a white fog surrounding it."

Brian said:

You took an irrelevant part of Davidson's attempt to compare heights between Lovelady and Prayer Man and tried to use it to refute the evidence of the woman's face.

No, I didn't do that. Chris happened to have combined his introduction to Prayer Woman with his Lovelady height comparison. All I did was briefly explain why there were two Lovelady's there, and warned against unfairly using the second Lovelady in a sharpness comparison.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

" 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.

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

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Nice try Andrej but no. You are attempting a slight of hand in order to get around good science. What you have avoided discussing is that the Photoshop process of contrast enhancement Davidson used takes existing features and increases the "contrast" between light and dark therefore making subtle differences in lightness more apparent but not adding anything to the original base image that wasn't there before. Your entry above is so lacking in finer scientific definition that it is unusable. The statement "This is just an artefact caused by forcing the image to show at least something" has no scientific meaning. You clearly don't understand the terms of what I have been describing.

If you followed my arguments more carefully you would realize I have already shown the elongated forehead, you so humorously and subjectively call "Oswaldian" (whatever that means), derives from a double exposure caused by Davidson's gif process. I already proved this on Duncan's site before the entire thread was weirdly removed. I'll repeat it again in case you don't get it. In the frame by frame analysis posted by Davidson/MacRae you could see what you call an "artefact" was indeed the forehead from the first frame being carried over from that frame into the ensuing frames as a double exposure. You can see Prayer Man change position downward in the animation. The forehead is NOT an artefact. It is traceable as a carry-over double exposure from the first frame as Prayer Man moves downward. Andrej, you have responded with inadequate, incorrect information that does not live up to the more accurate evidence I have presented. Frankly, it is obvious to me you are trying to make a case that the Wiegman original is too dark to work with. It isn't, as your third shot shows. The image possesses enough data that some simple Photoshop adjustments are adequate to bring out seriously significant evidence, as Davidson proved. Your dismissals have done nothing to disprove this. Nor have you articulated anything wrong with Davidson's Photoshop methodology. The only thing you offer is a claim that the forehead is an artefact and therefore discredits MacRae's claim. Meanwhile you still haven't offered an explanation of what exactly caused the separate woman's face that even you admit? I've already explained what it is. It is the sharp image from that last stable frame with a double exposure from the first frame imposed on it. This is correct and you must heel to it because it is firm, provable science.

Your indirect claim that the woman's face is pareidolia is as incorrect as it is unscientific. A better forensic examiner would realize the face lands precisely on the exact pin points of anatomical features. That forensic expert would notice the nose, chin, eyes, ears, and mouth on the woman's face are in perfect proportion for those features and in exactly the right place. The face itself is positioned in perfect exactitude in relation to the rest of the body and sits precisely where it would be if connected to a neck and torso beneath it. Furthermore the dynamic movement of Davidson's gif provides an additional dimension of behavioral forensics, as seen in Prayer Man's looking down into a purse held up by two hands in a distinctly female posture. This is seen in the motion clip, and even Bart Kamp admitted he saw Prayer Man "manipulating something with two hands". If you observe, the position of the woman's face is one of peering downward as if looking into a purse. A condemning affirmation that associates known body movements with the face. Measure the distances between the eyes and every other distance like the lips and nose or eyes and lips and you will realize dimensions that fit in perfect conformity to human anatomy. The odds of this occurring with pareidolia are in the range of impossibility and therefore scientifically prove the realness of the undoubtedly female face. Not to mention the behavioral reinforcing evidence. Mr Stancak ignores a simple thing. The face is seen on top of a body where a face should be. Yet he tries to convince us it is pareidolia. Hmm. Also, the main candidates for Depository employees being Prayer Man are women.

No answer from Mr Stancak about how the sharp frame Sandy produced also produced that sharp facial image. There's a simple explanation for why that face shows up in that last frame. Mr Stancak fails to realize that science confirms it is in that frame because it is at the lowest position in the series frames. Since we know Prayer Man was moving downward, for the woman face to end up in the lowest position in all of those frames means it is the last frame because that's where the last frame would be with downward movement.

This is forensic photo analysis science Mr Stancak. I suggest you learn it and obey it.

[Guest Brian Doyle]

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

Please try to stick to the subject at hand.

[Sandy Larsen]

I was able to identify the Wiegman's film frame which Chris Davidson has used in his analysis. It is frame 133 in the series of frames in Robert Groden's copy. I was able to locate it on internet and post is here. Please note that the part of doorway is in complete darkness. It is dark because there is almost no signal (information) there. We only see the bright spot suggesting that someone stood there. If the signal is that poor, any statement about the sharpness of any objects in this area of picture has no merit. One cannot have a sharp image of a face if neither the head or the body can be seen.

Wiegman's film, Frame 133

I have cut the region which Chris analysed in detail (below). The left panel shows the original picture. The middle panel is the same picture with only brightness added. This at least allowed to indicate the top of this person's head, which is highlighted by horizontal blue lines interspersed between pictures. The right panel is the one which should be the closest to Chris'es picture - both brightness and the contrast have been added. While the "Oswaldian" forehead is visible, the rest of head and the neck create another head. However, this is just an artefact caused by forcing the image to show at least something.

There has been a clever experiment performed by experimental psychologists in Glasgow. They generated random arrays of dots and asked their participants to press a key once they think there was a human face buried in the cloud of dots. They presented hundreds of such pictures, and then averaged the small percentage of pictures which people claimed to contain a human face (there never was any face in any of the pictures - dots were all random). The averaged image surprisingly showed two small circles as if eyes and a small dash line between and slightly below the eyes as if it would be the nose. When people believed that there was a human face in the cloud of random dots, their fusiform gyrus in temporo-occipital cortex (this is where human faces are interpreted in the brain) was activated. Human face is a powerful pareidolia object, and it is not surprising - from infancy we are primed and keen to see human faces. Thus, it is not that difficult to view a human face even if the visual field does not contain any face.

Taken together, this image and its processed products cannot prove the identity of Prayer Man. The part corresponding to head and neck contained as if two heads, the lower of the two not having any neck.

We may agree that: 1) there was someone standing in that part of the doorway, 2) the person held a bright object in his right hand, 3) we may draw a line defining the top of this person's head, 4) we can assume that the arms are in a similar "prayer" gesture as we see in Darnell. 5) there is a continuity between the person we see in Wiegman's and Darnell's films. Thus, identity information derived from Darnell's stills will apply to Wiegman's film. Due to the noise and poor signal in Wiegman's still, this inference does not hold vice versa.

Andrej,

You do know, don't you, that the frame you have chosen is the wrong one? The frame that Chris found the "woman" in is the one that has cars and is more blurry.

Not that it matters. There is no real woman to be seen.

[Thomas Graves]

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

Please try to stick to the subject at hand.

Dear Brian,

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

Thank God for small miracles.

-- Tommy

Edited September 26, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Andrej Stancak]

Brian:

if you know which Wiegman's frame it is which shows the female head, why don't you show us how it is possible to identify a female face in it. You comment on the work of other people but you yourself fail to demonstrate anything. Please, identify the original picture which you think yielded the female face, and show all intermediate steps, and the result. If not, this silly game of yours will continue on and on. We were nice to you, however, this is about the end of it.

Well, we can stop responding to your posts, however, in that case you would be allowed to effectively steal and destroy this thread. If you fail to provide any photographic evidence to support your claims in your next post, I will contact the Administrator to consult possible solutions. I cannot see that the Administrator would see any advantage in serious researchers leaving the EF.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Thomas Graves]

Larsen wrote:

" Brian claims that the Prayer Person "woman" in Chris's photo came from the Sharp Frame. We know that's not true because it is the Blurry Frame that has Prayer Person holding the bright object up to his face. I don't know why Brian is confused about this. "

Simply disproven by realizing Kamp showed the image with the elongated forehead on the woman's face as the image in question.

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

The opponents continue to offer completely wrong information with no protest from the other members of the board. I'm sorry but I am forced to invoke questions of competency.

In chess this is know as a "checkmate" gentlemen...

Dear Brian,

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

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

-- Tommy

Edited September 27, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Guest Brian Doyle]

I have been given a warning that my posts contained an uncollegial "attitude" and were insulting and that's why they were removed and that I faced potential moderation.

I'll try to adjust to this directive and re-apply my previous responses that contained valid facts that I feel offer the best information and arguments.

1) Mr Stancak pointed to what I have reasonably proven was the double exposure image of Prayer Woman's forehead being carried over to other frames and said it possessed "Oswaldian" features. Since I have reasonably proven that the forehead is a non-existent photo quirk it shows a tendency to apply prejudiced suggestion of Oswald-like features on Mr Stancak's behalf.

2) Mr Stancak tried to say the woman's face was pareidolia. I showed that there are too many forensic factors backing it for it to be imaginary, the main one being the face is exactly where a face should be in relation to the rest of the body, therefore the contention that an imaginary face appeared by chance right where a real one should be defies impossible odds, let alone common sense.

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

4) If we could resurrect the Davidson/MacRae frame by frame analysis it would show the elongated forehead is without a doubt the result of a quirk of Davidson's gif process and is not related to the evidence of the woman's face.

5) If the truth of this matter still has any importance, I pointed out to Mr Stancak that since his pareidolia claim had been refuted it is important to follow-through and answer what the woman's face is? Davidson reasonably showed that all he did was deposit the Wiegman Film into Photoshop after making some simple contrast adjustments. If the face is not imaginary, and isn't the result of any invalid photo processing, then what is causing it? This is a perfectly fair question and is the necessary logical follow-through that any normal debate would require. I don't think it is fair to vilify the asker.

Davidson's Photoshop contrast adjustments are analogous to military Night Vision technology. Night Vision tech can extract amazingly clear images from what the human eye interprets as total darkness due to its limitations. In a more simple way Photoshop contrast adjustments do the same thing. They exaggerate the differences between lighter and darker images in a film frame in order to create a higher contrast between them and therefore make their differences more apparent. This overcomes the limitations of the human eye and makes the image more visible. However, most importantly, Photoshop contrast amplification only takes things that exist in the original base image and makes them more apparent. It does NOT add anything that isn't there in the first place. I'm afraid Mr Davidson has used a perfectly clean methodology that produced the result of a woman's face via its own internal mechanisms and therefore did so legitimately. Since the pareidolia claim being used to deny this isn't valid, then it is perfectly reasonable to request those whose claim has been disproven to account for what that face is?

The reason the sharp frame brought out the face is because the light hitting that stable frame settled more precisely on the pixels and distributed more deeply and evenly. This made the subtle facial features come out better and allowed the Photoshop contrast technology to bring out the subtlest of features, including the face. If we could just please stick to the facts, we have reasonably established the face is exactly where a face should be and possesses precise anatomical dimensions for facial features - making it impossible for it to be an accidental pareidolia image. It also possesses conformity to behavior associated with other objects in the photo, namely the purse, that Prayer Woman is peering down in to. Since it is impossible for any chance imaginary image to possess all these confirming forensic factors at once, we can safely conclude the face is part of real objects Wiegman's film captured and is not any chance imaginary image. This means the reasoning being used to deny the woman's face is invalid and therefore requires a response. Since we have reasonably shown the image resulted from a clean Photoshop process we can only conclude it existed on Wiegman's original film and therefore legitimately shows the face of a woman.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Brian Doyle

[Guest Brian Doyle]

Answer to Graves:

Closer analysis shows the head does not raise. The 2nd sharper shot shows the woman's face and Duncan's enlargement shows that face is peering slightly downward into her purse. What you are saying is evidence of the head raising is a double exposure image of Prayer Woman's forehead that is carried over from the first frame. If we could access the Davidson/MacRae frame by frame breakdown of Davidson's animated gif it more than clearly shows this. Plus deft observation of the woman's face in that same frame would show anatomy does not allow that high a forehead on the observed woman's face. This proves it is a double exposure quirk since the face is self-contained and comes only from the sharp frame.

There is no T-shirt on Prayer Woman. You are mistaking white skin for fabric, as shown in other enlargements of Prayer Woman.

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Please try to stick to the subject at hand.

Dear Brian,

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

Thank God for small miracles.

-- Tommy

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

I for one would like to see the sideburn frames.

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

Edited September 27, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Newton]

I have been given a warning that my posts contained an uncollegial "attitude" and were insulting and that's why they were removed and that I faced potential moderation.

Certainly could have something to do with whatever you're up to. Does this screen cap display more coincidence theory or what?

[Sandy Larsen]

For anybody who read the following before Brian deleted it it was deleted by admin, please note that what Brian said isn't true.

Brian Doyle, on 26 Sept 2016 - 4:37 PM, said:

Larsen wrote:

" Brian claims that the Prayer Person "woman" in Chris's photo came from the Sharp Frame. We know that's not true because it is the Blurry Frame that has Prayer Person holding the bright object up to his face. I don't know why Brian is confused about this. "

Simply disproven by realizing Kamp showed the image with the elongated forehead on the woman's face as the image in question.

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

The opponents continue to offer completely wrong information with no protest from the other members of the board. I'm sorry but I am forced to invoke questions of competency.

In chess this is know as a "checkmate" gentlemen...

Edited September 28, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Guest Brian Doyle]

I didn't delete that Sandy. I assume the moderator will OK my repeating the factual part.

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

An enlargement of the face on Prayer Man in that sharper image will show the woman's face.

Sandy, please acknowledge this is correct. It has already been posted by others. The sharper image is the one with the woman's face.

Simply disproven by realizing Kamp showed the image with the elongated forehead on the woman's face as the image in question.

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

Edited September 27, 2016 by Brian Doyle