Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • 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

Recommended Posts

I can assure you that Dan Doyle is not Brian. Chris, your post was hidden because Dan isn't Brian.

 

Also, I am well aware of what Mr.Doyle has posted about us at Duncan's forum as well as DPF, when he was running around telling everyone we banned him, which we didn't do. I made a copy of all of it.  I was a bit surprised both that he was saying those things when he was already in a bit of doo, and him thinking he was banned, when he could still log in.  Oh, well....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still here?

Fine by me.

1/You have no scientific skills. Period! 2%? Where did you come up with that info? Lalaland? 

Nor do you possess any skills what type of blur we are talking about, let alone interpret them. Your deep state of denial regarding this is all the more telling.

2/You still owe me an apology for the homophobic rubbish at MacRae's.

3/You owe Jim D an apology

4/You owe Ray an apology

5/You owe Andrej a massive apology for the lies you have spread at MacRae's 

 

And those stupid buttons were refuted yonks ago. They are not neatly lined up at all. It's an artefact from the video transfer. Again you show your ignorance regarding technical matters like these. 

Come back when you have real evidence. A real photographic expert would tell you to GTFO trying to put forward a 9th or even a possible 10th generation of an image.

I am still of the opinion you need to be dropped out of this place for life.

Prayer-Woman-Dead-and-Buried.jpg

 

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2016 at 0:47 PM, Bart Kamp said:

 

Prayer-Man-is-still-Lee-Oswald-blurred-e

 

 

      

        What Mr Kamp is not addressing is, at a scientific level that is beyond the naked eye level we are dealing at here, Prayer Man's bottom dark band of hair can be analyzed on a spectral basis to match it to the hair on the top of his head. I can see it with my naked eye, but spectral analysis will prove that the color tones match on a scientific basis. You also have a 3rd source for spectral color tone matching. Frazier's hair can also be matched at a spectral level to show it is similar to Prayer Man's hair. This shows, at a scientific level, that the dark areas seen on both Prayer Man and Frazier's heads are hair. This will conclusively prove that the dark band seen beneath Prayer Man's ear is also hair. This automatically refutes Prayer Man being Oswald since Oswald's short hair can be seen in his mugshot and it doesn't go below his ear, no matter how many false comparisons are shown. 

        Mr Kamp has answered my discussion of the hair evidence by means of an irrelevant camera blurring discussion. What he is doing is pointing to the lighter band on Prayer Man's head with his two red arrows and saying it is the long blur of Prayer Man's ear. There are reasons why that isn't so. Right above Kamp's alleged blurred ear is another light colored band. The light colored band above what Kamp is calling the blurred ear can't be a second ear, so what is it? It is either wavy hair reflecting sunlight at intervals or it is a linear photo artifact that is seen elsewhere in the photo. If it is a linear artifact it doesn't disprove the hair that we know is there because the person in question had hair. So either way it is either a linear artifact going through woman's long wavy hair or intervals of sunlight reflecting off the waves of woman's long hair. Also: I'm pretty sure there is no ear on Prayer Man because it is covered by long hair.     

      Mr Kamp has placed his arrows at the lower of the two light colored bands. He should have placed those arrows one band lower on the lowest of the 3 dark colored bands. That lowest band is more meaningful evidence wise. His failure to outline the most meaningful evidence only exhibits how he is not answering what is being argued. Not only is Mr Kamp's description of his highlighted band incorrect but it also fails to address the more pertinent evidence. Once Spectral analysis is done on the hair on the top of Prayer Man's head, along with that lowest band, it will show they both match. And if the area we know is hair on the top of Prayer Man's head matches the dark blotch under 'his' ear then we know it's hair. Mr Kamp has failed to discuss this and his ear blurring entry is not relevant.

      The image of Frazier above is very important because it shows what a person who we know had a short haircut similar to Oswald would look like in Darnell. Not only can we see the clear outline of Frazier's hair but we can also see the light colored area where his ear is located. Frazier also represents another source internal to Darnell's image for spectral hair properties. Additionally, Frazier is important because we can see his ear and also see there is no blurring. Kamp suggests camera motion blur, but, scientifically, a camera cannot blur in one part of the image and not in another. Any camera motion blur would be distributed throughout the whole image. Go to Frazier's ear and we see no such lengthy blurring. What this tells you is the long lighter colored band on Prayer Man that Kamp highlights with red arrows is not camera blur. It shows that it is either an artifact or sunlight reflection, however it does not refute the obvious large uniform mass of woman's hair we are seeing.        

      Having dismissed Mr Kamp's claim we can now return to the pertinent evidence of the lowest hair band that he did not address. If you view Mr Kamp's response he ignored my point that Prayer Man is facing about 30 degrees or so towards the camera. Oswald's mugshot also has a similar angle. The small strip of hair Mr Kamp showed in his images is not visible in Darnell because of this angle. Mr Kamp is offering both invalid and irrelevant evidence and is not answering the science I am showing. He has not answered the fact that, at the angle seen in Darnell, and the mugshot, Oswald's neck would appear as white from front to back. This is a color field of enough size and resolution that it would be impossible for the image to show the dark band we see going more than 50% across Prayer Man's neck in Darnell. It is a color field that appears on Frazier, in full view, as a direct comparison, and shows his neck to be completely white from front to back.    

     Finally, the Darnell image above shows Frazier to be about 6-7 inches taller than Prayer Man. Frazier was just over 6 foot. Oswald was 5 foot 9. On Deep Politics Drew Phipps did the trigonometry to show that at the distance of Darnell's camera the most Prayer Man could differ from Frazier in height, due to perspective shift, is about 1/3rd of an inch. The obvious 6-7 inch height difference between Prayer Man and Frazier in Darnell excludes Oswald from being Prayer Man, and the 1/3rd inch perspective shift maximum disallows any perspective excuses for this obvious height difference. Richard Gilbride added some good illustrated drafts of these height measurements. He was ignored and I haven't seen him since.         

             

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can try and avoid matters but you are not getting away with this drivel.

What you fail to address here, and I post this for the third time are the apologies you owe to me for those disgusting homophobic slurs and the unbecoming demeanour to  Ray Mitcham, Jim D and Andrej S.

It shows what you are made of.

Again I state and for everyone to see is your refusal to address ALL THE EVIDENCE that has been presented by me and others. Instead of just harping on about a small part of an image of which its entire size comprises to no more than 654 x 480 pixels. How is that for science!

Add on Oswald's neck hair below his ear it makes him the perfect candidate for Prayer Man. That is in conjunction with all the other evidence (docs/statements) 

You possess no skills when it comes to analysing an image, you have not brought anything to the table for the past 15 months in any shape or form besides your own observations using other people's work, which not one researcher agrees with! You have been warned about this before and been moderated at two forums for this behaviour. In this instance you are using the images I presented.

The camera blurring discussion you refer to holds more than anything you have posted, as a matter of fact it confirms that blurring stretches matter beyond its original size. Does not take a very intelligent person to understand this, yet you seem to have missed the boat and stay behind and resort to heavy trolling and deflecting but it doesn't work, not just here, but also at DPF, MacRae's and Amazon. Again that ought to tell everyone something. I wonder whether MacRae set you up for this to show up here with your repugnant antics, there is no place here for this rubbish. 

Frazier's ear is sharp? Come again? You actually know the meaning of what you are actually posting? Of course you do not.

Game over Doyle.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

     Again Mr Kamp, you are not answering credible evidence I have posted. I assume your assertion that the evidence I'm pointing out is too small is referring to the lowest of the black bands in Prayer Man's hair. I have to assume because your answers are so vague that they don't specifically describe what you are referring to. It's not too small because anyone can see it and you used the lighter band of the exact same size above it to make your invalid "blurred ear" argument. So you had no problem with its size in regard to evidence when you used it. Any objective person can look at Darnell and see both the dark band and Frazier's ear are not too small to make the arguments I do with them. You proved so yourself when you made your invalid blurred ear argument using the same item and even pointed it out with arrows.

     This is twice now that you have avoided addressing the spectral analysis argument for the hair on Prayer Man's head. I have argued correctly, using valid, visible examples in the Darnell image, that the dark areas can be confirmed at a color spectrum level to be the same. Since we know the dark area at the top of Prayer Man's head is hair then the dark area beneath the ear that matches it at a spectral level would also have to be hair. Even the naked eye can see this. Mr Kamp, you try to represent yourself as offering the best photo science. These spectral analyses are that science and require an adequate answer when shown. So far you have not given any. In Darnell you will have 3 objects that match on a spectral color tone basis. One will be the top of Prayer Man's head where we know there is hair. The second will be the lowest dark band on Prayer Man's head. And the third will be Frazier's hair. The arguments why these three samples will prove Prayer Man has long hair were already made in my last post.

      Your camera blur argument has been refuted. If you look at Frazier's ear it has no such elongated blurring. Since film images have to blur uniformly throughout, the long light colored band you pointed to on Prayer Man's head cannot be a camera-blurred ear. It is likely a linear artifact or intervals of sunlight reflecting in wavy hair. Even better the ear you refer to on Prayer Man is almost certainly covered under long hair. Something one look at Oswald's mugshot would show to be impossible. This photographic evidence makes clear that Prayer Man has long hair and that if it was Oswald it would be impossible for him to appear as he does in Darnell. My case is based on sound arguments of evidence and possesses a quality of analysis that deserves equal response.

       The way photo science works is once you show that Frazier's ear is unblurred it unavoidably requires that Prayer Man's ear would also have to be unblurred. Since blurring is the aberration, and Frazier's ear is unblurred, that means his normal ear is the going standard and proves ALL ears would have to be unblurred. Mr Kamp's blurring claim is refuted by this alone. So one look at Oswald's mugshot makes it clear that his prominent ear would have to show up in Darnell like Frazier's did.      

     Mr Kamp ignored the fact that Prayer Man's standing at a 30 degree angle in Darnell means his hair strip on the back of the neck argument is moot since you can't see it at that angle. Nor does he answer why we can't see Oswald's ear. The 30 degree angle point was ignored by Mr Kamp and his same refuted claim was re-entered. If Prayer Man were Oswald you would see what you see in the mugshot - which is white neck skin from front to back with a prominent ear.  

   

       The real questions that need to be answered here are: Why does Frazier show short hair, an obvious ear, and the white skin of his neck from front to back in Darnell?

         If Oswald had a similar haircut why doesn't he appear similarly?

         Since we can see the difference between Prayer Man and Frazier clearly in Darnell, why does Prayer Man have a noticeably different appearance showing dark hair where Frazier has light skin?  

 

        Also:  Kamp made no attempt to answer the height argument that was backed by trigonometry on Deep Politics and by drafted illustrations by Gilbride here. Frazier is clearly 6 to 7 inches taller than Prayer Man in this photo, which would be impossible for the 5 foot 9 Oswald. 

          

        The definition of evidence is that which the opposition cannot answer or refute. I assure you as soon as any photo analysis expert gets hold of Darnell he will confirm everything I've written here. In fact Davidson should be encouraged to process Darnell in his Photoshop tool to see if he can improve the image like he did with Wiegman.       

         

         Mr Kamp doesn't seem to realize that the way evidence works is any "small part" that shows irrefutable evidence disproves any larger body of evidence that doesn't better it. It's the "little bit pregnant" rule he doesn't seem to fathom.     

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian,

your comments read as a word salad if you know what I mean. The science-like phrases with which you fill your naive and entirely wrong views cannot hide a complete lack of substance in your posts. 

Now I see that you play the same game with Darnell's still which you played with Wiegman's frame few weeks ago. You find a dubious detail in the darkest spot of the doorway, in the shadow and behind Prayer Man's head, and then claim that it can only be a female hair. Naturally, you are also the judge. If someone cannot see what you see or is just cautious in his/her interpretations and admits uncertainty, you employ your offensive, arrogant and repulsive style which I hoped would never be seen again on the Education Forum. Bright people are usually very cautious and frequently admit uncertainty. In contrast, dumb people are always very self-assured because they do not understand the complexity and the conditioned and subjective nature of the things. Brian, are you certain or uncertain about your observation of alleged female hair behind Prayer Man's head?  

As far as the height argument is concerned, you may know that Prayer Man's height (=Oswald's height) was 5'9''. Prayer Man stood with his right foot on the first step below the top landing, and his left leg rested on the top landing. This possibility has been discussed earlier in this thread, and you can also read about the height estimate on my blog:

https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/

I have prepared a more advanced visualisation of Prayer Man using Poser11 and SketchupPro16 which allow to model more precisely the details of Prayer Man's posture, and to test it by overlaying the model with Darnell's/Wiegman's stills. I will post it on "Oswald leaving the TSBD?" thread in due time once it is finished to my satisfaction. In the meantime, please find here one snapshot from an earlier version. 

 

darnell_adjustedfrazier1.jpg?w=529&h=396

 

You need to find some stronger argument for your view of Prayer Man being actually a woman than a would-be female hair behind Prayer Man's or impossible body height. None of your points holds.  

P.S. I do not expect any apology from you as your agenda with Prayer Man on this forum is not to be fair, polite, objective and collegiate, but to trash Sean Murphy's research which you hate so badly.

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Stancak, I ask that you please stick to the evidence and avoid personal comments.

It is not true that I am pointing to something others can't see. Mr Kamp was able to see what I am talking about because he drew arrows to it. So it is not true that the evidence I am talking about is a "dubious detail" as you call it. Kamp already showed that he could see the light colored band and drew an arrow to it. If he can see the light colored bands then he can see the dark colored bands that border them.

We need an arbitration here because the opposition is pretending we haven't established what is hair on Frazier and Prayer Man. I would ask Mr Stancak to stop the dramatic wording and please point out what he considers to be hair on both Frazier and Prayer Man. This debate cannot proceed unless a basic level of honest admission of established facts is had. Both Mr Stancak and Kamp have completely avoided recognizing or discussing the hair on Prayer Man and Frazier's heads. It is necessary to do in order to discuss the evidence. It's my opinion that they are avoiding it because they know what it shows. I find it hard to believe that Mr Stancak cannot see the black band right beneath the lighter colored band Mr Kamp has pointed two large red arrows toward.    

Mr Stancak, my arguments were quite clearly spelled out and should be understandable by anyone of average intelligence. I made clear arguments comparing critical features seen in Darnell, like Frazier's ear and short hair compared to Prayer Man. I notice that neither you or Bart Kamp answered any of those arguments directly. Especially the spectral color comparison that does have scientific merit despite your avoidance of it.

I'd like for you to give a direct answer to Kamp's camera blur claim via my response. Prayer Man's ear cannot be blurred in a streak like Kamp is claiming because Frazier's would be too. What we see on Frazier is an unblurred ear. What that means is Prayer Man's ear is also not blurred. Kamp is probably mistaking a linear artifact for camera blur. In any case camera blur does not answer the spectral analysis argument.

I have seen your one leg down claim for Prayer Man's height difference. Do you realize you are referring to evidence that you have fabricated by means of computer graphics? It is unsubmittable because it is only based on your creation of an image. When you entered it last time you backed off to the statement "I am not showing things that existed. I am only showing things that may have existed". Meanwhile on this site MacRae showed an animated film clip of Prayer Man in the portal showing Prayer Man's stabilized movements in all films. Those movements showed a person who was not standing with one leg down on the step because of their squared shoulders. Additionally, if you compare Prayer Man's height in Davidson's Wiegman image it shows a person who is not standing with one leg down on the step. Since Prayer Man's height doesn't change in all images, we can assume 'he' wasn't standing in any unnatural and uncomfortable one step down position. You are forgetting we already showed Prayer Man can't be one step down because of a comparison to Lovelady's height. Ultimately, if you view your offering it is an indirect admission that, indeed, if Prayer Man is standing on the landing then he is too short to be Oswald. Finally, your one step down claim is unscientific because, if Prayer Man was standing 7 inches lower than Frazier on the 7 inch step, then, when he rose up to the landing, he would be equal to Frazier and therefore not be Oswald.  Either way it excludes Prayer Man from being the 5 foot 9 Oswald. We already refuted the one step down claim months ago when Gilbride posted my proof that, by body proportion, Prayer Man's legs would have to be too long in relation to the rest of his body to be on the first step down. Mr Stancak you are just re-posting material that was refuted long ago. I see your one step down claim as a contrivance forced by good evidence.      

I'd like for you to please answer my arguments for the spectral color tones of Prayer Man's hair, and how they prove long hair, as well as Frazier's short hair and ear. Also I'd like for you to answer my arguments concerning Oswald's mugshot in comparison to Prayer Man. So far you haven't.

 

 

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian:

 I am familiar with your posts on the topic via a personal message from a senior member of EF, and through my subsequent review of your posts at one of the threads on JFKassassinationforum. Your style of posting is simply unacceptable. I do not understand moderators' reasons for letting you posting.

1. I cannot see any female hair in Prayer Man's figure. Only you can see it. Isn't it strange? Please draw a contour around the "female" hair, maybe it helps others to see it. And it may also help you to understand that it just cannot be done. 

2. The one-foot-down-one-foot-up solution explains how a man 5'9'' could stand in the doorway at Prayer Man's location. It is a better solution than any other solution, i.e. a solution postulating a woman standing at that particular spot. I have not fabricated any evidence with my model as everyone (except you) perceives the difference between a model and the reality. It is not possible for me to arrange a photographic session at Dealey Plaza using manikins of exactly the same heights as the people in Darnell/Wiegman scenes. A re-enactment of the scene would be the ultimate proof of my hypothesis. "Squared" shoulders: I am not sure what does this mean and how does it refute my hypothesis. Please, explain and demonstrate, and please do not hide behind other people's work.

As far as Prayer Man in Wiegman's frame is concerned, Prayer Man stood at a very similar location in Wiegman as in Darnell (almost identical) and also with one foot down and one foot up. Prayer Man just rotated slightly towards his left in Darnell to allow the people who were returning to the building to enter. It is difficult to understand the relationships between various human figures just by looking on a Wiegman's frame because most of the frames are quite severely tilted to the left (from a front view) (thus lifting up Lovelady who stood close to the central rail), and there is also the factor of perspective - Lovelady was slightly closer to the camera than Prayer Man. Thus, your claim that Lovelady's height relative to Prayer Man's head excludes Prayer Man being 5'9'' is untenable.  

Prayer Man stood effectively one step below Frazier because his left leg was bend in the knee joint, and the body weight rested on his right leg. As far as the apparent body height of Prayer Man is concerned, it would be similar to the situation in which he would stand with both his feet on the first step below the top landing. Thus, your argument that Prayer Man should reach almost the height of Frazier is not justified.

I would be very interested in seeing your proof which you passed on Mr. Gilbride:   "We already refuted the one step down claim months ago when Gilbride posted my proof that, by body proportion, Prayer Man's legs would have to be too long in relation to the rest of his body to be on the first step down." Please, do not hide and demonstrate. One of the reasons for employing Poser11 is to model the Prayer Man's body by maintaining the anatomical proportions between individual body parts (please see the Poser reconstruction below). 

"Mr Stancak you are just re-posting material that was refuted long ago. I see your one step down claim as a contrivance forced by good evidence. " Please, show the good evidence.     

I have explained my reasons for not showing any new models at this stage. However, I am posting at least my current Poser11 reconstruction of Prayer Man's stance and few other details. The shadows and the exact body orientation can only be achieved at a later stage in SketchupPro.

 

:pm_j2.jpg

4. Your colour tone argument is a nonsense. We do not have any "colour tone spectra" in Darnell's still - only shades of grey. Thus, one can just navigate with a cursor to a particular spot on a picture and read directly the value (0-255). This value of grey is a summary value resulting from narrowing down the colour information (three channels) onto a grey continuum, and from the amount of light it receives. If you see that two pixels in a black-and-white pictures have the same grey value, it does not mean that the colours of the associated objects were identical. In contrast, objects of the same colour but illuminated differently would show a different value of grey.

If you wish to continue the debate, please supply all the evidence you mentioned in your posts and which I have asked for in this post. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you wish to continue the debate, please supply all the evidence you mentioned in your posts and which I have asked for in this post."

 

 

I think you are in for a long wait, Andrej.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2016 at 4:46 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

 

1. I cannot see any female hair in Prayer Man's figure. Only you can see it. Isn't it strange? Please draw a contour around the "female" hair, maybe it helps others to see it. And it may also help you to understand that it just cannot be done. 

 

     I asked Mr Kamp to answer my response to his last post, he did not. 1) I asked you first Mr Stancak. I asked you to please identify what you consider to be Prayer Man's hair as shown in Kamp's posted Darnell image. You did not do so and responded by asking me to do computer image outlining that you yourself showed an unwillingness to do. It is my opinion that you are refusing to do so because of your awareness that any attempt you make at outlining what you consider to be hair on Prayer Man will prove my point. Your move here relieves you of having to account for what your own ROKC teammate saw so clearly that he was able to draw arrows to it. 2) It is not true that I am the only one who can see it. Duncan MacRae drew a fairly adequate outline of the woman's hair seen in Darnell. He did so by following the dark mass I am pointing out that was clear enough for him to draw an outline around. There are many others who admit it looks like a woman. Yourself included in this thread. A woman would possess the long hair I am pointing out.

 

   

Quote

2. The one-foot-down-one-foot-up solution explains how a man 5'9'' could stand in the doorway at Prayer Man's location. It is a better solution than any other solution, i.e. a solution postulating a woman standing at that particular spot. I have not fabricated any evidence with my model as everyone (except you) perceives the difference between a model and the reality. It is not possible for me to arrange a photographic session at Dealey Plaza using manikins of exactly the same heights as the people in Darnell/Wiegman scenes. A re-enactment of the scene would be the ultimate proof of my hypothesis. "Squared" shoulders: I am not sure what does this mean and how does it refute my hypothesis. Please, explain and demonstrate, and please do not hide behind other people's work.

 

              Wrong. The Davidson 2 part gif I will post separately shows Prayer Man with 'his' shoulders in line parallel to the front face of the landing. For Prayer Man to have one foot on the step and one on the landing is not a position any human would hold for too long. Human behavior would make that individual step down completely on to the step and not leave one foot up on the landing while going through all the motions Prayer Man's arms are doing. It is important to note that Prayer Man's height never changes in all available images. 

      Second, you never answered my height argument. It proves Prayer Man can't be Oswald by your own example. If we hypothetically allow Prayer Man to be standing with one foot on the step we can draw a line from the top of Prayer Man's head over to Frazier and he comes up to about Frazier's chin (7 inches shorter than the top of Frazier's head). Since we know the Depository steps are 7 inches tall that would mean when Prayer Man stepped up to the landing he would be equal in height with the 6 foot tall Frazier - as a person who was 7 inches shorter would do if he rose up one 7 inch step. Since Oswald was 5 foot 9, and could never be equal in height with Frazier, this scientifically proves Prayer Man cannot be Oswald by itself.

       In the Gilbride posts we showed that Darnell's camera is at an approximate 20 degree angle or so to the portal. You still fail to grasp the basic point that your claim that Prayer Man is standing on the step commits him to a specific spot that is well forward on the landing (to the point of being on the step). Gilbride already posted that Prayer Man's head is in line with the aluminum frame. When you make a geometric triangulation of Prayer Man's position in the portal according to those landmarks he turns out to be too far from the wall to be leaning with folded arms. He would also have to be intersecting the sun plane at that position. Since he is not that proves that Prayer Man was always on the landing since his height doesn't change. Once you prove Prayer Man was on the landing then a direct height comparison with Frazier makes him well too short to be Oswald.  

          Mr Stancak, please answer what I have written in your next response. 

 

Quote

As far as Prayer Man in Wiegman's frame is concerned, Prayer Man stood at a very similar location in Wiegman as in Darnell (almost identical) and also with one foot down and one foot up. Prayer Man just rotated slightly towards his left in Darnell to allow the people who were returning to the building to enter. It is difficult to understand the relationships between various human figures just by looking on a Wiegman's frame because most of the frames are quite severely tilted to the left (from a front view) (thus lifting up Lovelady who stood close to the central rail), and there is also the factor of perspective - Lovelady was slightly closer to the camera than Prayer Man. Thus, your claim that Lovelady's height relative to Prayer Man's head excludes Prayer Man being 5'9'' is untenable.

 

      If Prayer Man had rotated to allow people coming up the steps to get by it would be entirely unnatural for him to not step back into the open space behind him on the landing to facilitate it. You are just defying human behavior to suggest that Prayer Man was standing in the unnatural position of having one foot on the step and one on the landing this whole time. Furthermore, Gilbride already posted the graphic showing how Prayer Man would have to have grotesquely long shins to have any foot on the step according to the body proportions that are visible.   

      In Wiegman it is quite clear that Prayer Man would not be looking in to a purse or operating a camera with one foot on the step. You people are forgetting you were the ones arguing that Prayer Man was back in the rear corner of the portal. Your alleged one foot down claim only puts Prayer Man all the way forward and in to the sun plane that is making his hand glow. 

     If we can find Gilbride's draft illustration he took a protractor and drew out the radiuses of the distances from Darnell's camera to both Frazier and Prayer Man. You don't seem to realize Mr Stancak, your claim that Prayer Man had one foot on the step commits him to being well forward on the landing. When you correctly scientifically map both Frazier's and Prayer Man's locations accordingly it means Frazier was anywhere from directly in the same radius line from Darnell's camera as Prayer Man to only a foot or so maximum separation. Drew Phipps did the trigonometry for this over on Deep Politics and proved that the most height difference perspective shift could cause would be negligible. Something like 1/3rd of an inch at the most for the full 4 foot width of the landing. Since Prayer Man only had about a foot of depth separation max from Frazier that would mean there could only be a 1/12th of an inch maximum perspective shift. When you apply that 1/12th of an inch to the visible height difference in Darnell it is negligible and cannot be used to avoid the interpretation of the heights we can determine in the portal. You have to take responsibility for your chess pieces Mr Stancak. You can make that one step down move but you have to account for what it entails according to the rules of the game. Your one step down claim places Prayer Man at a radius from Darnell's camera where you cannot use perspective shift as an excuse for the obvious height difference.  

 

Quote

 

Prayer Man stood effectively one step below Frazier because his left leg was bend in the knee joint, and the body weight rested on his right leg. As far as the apparent body height of Prayer Man is concerned, it would be similar to the situation in which he would stand with both his feet on the first step below the top landing. Thus, your argument that Prayer Man should reach almost the height of Frazier is not justified.

 

   Simply refuted by looking at MacRae's stabilized animation of Prayer Man in the portal. Is it still posted on the Education Forum? After seeing the movements Prayer Man is making it would be impossible to have one leg down on the step and bent. MacRae's animation showed a person who was standing flat-footed with both feet on the landing.

    I'm sorry Mr Stancak but you show a lack of skill in analysis because even if your bent leg theory were true if Prayer Man were standing with a bent leg on a step that was 7 inches lower than the landing when he straightened that leg out and rose to the landing he would then be even taller than Frazier only proving my point even more. You're not answering the point of the 7 inch step. Please answer it. If what you are saying is true then when Prayer Man rose to the landing he would add the height of the 7 inch step and therefore be too tall to be Oswald. Do you understand this basic point? 

     Credible analysis would realize that Prayer Man's hand is glowing in Wiegman because it is on the edge of the sun plane. If you observe Darnell carefully you can see Prayer Man's hand is not glowing (though it is brighter because of sun exposure). What that means is Prayer Man has pulled back from the sun plane, just like Mr Stancak surmises when he says Prayer Man was making way for people coming up the stairs. The only place for Prayer Man to pull back from the sun plane is the landing according to Mr Stancak's own description. Once you establish Prayer Man is on the landing in Wiegman, and realize his height never changes in all images, it proves Prayer Man is standing on the landing in all images.  

 

Quote

.     

 

4. Your colour tone argument is a nonsense. We do not have any "colour tone spectra" in Darnell's still - only shades of grey. Thus, one can just navigate with a cursor to a particular spot on a picture and read directly the value (0-255). This value of grey is a summary value resulting from narrowing down the colour information (three channels) onto a grey continuum, and from the amount of light it receives. If you see that two pixels in a black-and-white pictures have the same grey value, it does not mean that the colours of the associated objects were identical. In contrast, objects of the same colour but illuminated differently would show a different value of grey.

 

    Again Mr Stancak, if you consult experts you will find they will confirm that black and white images contain spectral frequencies and data. Black and white are technically colors. I consider your above reply a deliberate oversimplification designed to avoid my arguments that the color tones in the lowest dark band on Prayer Man's hair and the top of his head, where we know there is hair, match because they are part of a visible cohesive mass. They will also match Frazier's hair that we know is hair. 

      Your 'cursor' argument is a gross oversimplification designed to get around the high tech spectral color analysis an expert would apply to the image and narrow down the range of possibilities for what it is. That expert would quickly agree that the dark band you are saying you don't see (even though Kamp drew arrows to it) is part of one cohesive mass that constitutes hair and is proven so not only by the naked eye but by color frequency matching as well.    

            There's also a point I'd like to make. On ROKC a poster named 'JFK Student' posted a sepia image where he claims he can see a white sleeve going to Prayer Man's wrist. ROKC complimented him and gave him credit etc. However none of them either noticed or pointed out that Oswald couldn't have a long white sleeve going to his wrist according to his known clothing. Also a poster named Jake has posted a drawing repeating the folded arms and leaning against the wall claim. Jake also received automatic compliments etc but no one pointed out to him that his image diametrically conflicts with Stancak's one foot on the step claim. None of them pointed out that MacRae's animated film clip shows a person whose hands are moving separately and cannot be folded, or that the close time separation between Darnell and Wiegman precludes Prayer Man shifting from handling something to leaning against the wall. In fact, anyone with good analysis skills would realize Prayer Man can't be handling a camera and then be folding his arms in such a short time period. The obvious handling of something with both hands seen in Duncan's animation led Kamp to proclaim on ROKC "I see now that Prayer Man is manipulating something with both hands". Jake's drawing shows Prayer Man's elbow reflected in the plate glass. However he failed to notice that Prayer Man's equally exposed left cheek, that should have made a similar reflection, made no reflection at all. That's because there is no reflection of Prayer Man's left elbow in the glass. What you are seeing there in Darnell is Prayer Man's left hand grasping the purse. I would like to point out that the people who are pretending they are strict critics of content are the same people who allowed these fatal conflicts from their own side.              

 

               (Duncan has mis-drawn the purse below. It actually comes out under Prayer Man's right wrist)

 

Prayer Woman Hair.jpg

Kamp Darnell.jpg

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe we should cater this to one posters argument.
I don't believe the burden of proof has been sustained for one to even conjecture the person in
the corner is anything but a male, wearing a work type shirt, with male type features.
Long neck lines and sideburns aside, the only evidence pointed to is others mistaking foreheads for faces on the etch-a-sketch.

I looked at what was posted and provenance of the DIDP clip.
It would not be worth the kind of study we are after.
If it was then we can all go home.

Its not.

We would need a 3rd gen copy to study with any confidence the sort of minutia a Brian or Duncan would ultimately bring.

As it stands with what is presented it is Prayer Man.

Cheers, ED


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     

            If you view Davidson's gif below it shows a frame from the very beginning of the Wiegman Film interspersed with a frame from the very end. Davidson's technology offers 100% of the 1st frame in the 1st image and then blends the two for several frames before offering 100% of the 2nd frame in the last image. This creates an artificial motion picture effect from only 2 images. The reason you can see the face of a woman in the 2nd frame is because Wiegman has pulled much closer to the portal and therefore gets a better clearer shot. 

          Bart Kamp showed the elongated forehead in the 2nd image and claimed it was an artifact. Kamp suggested that since the elongated forehead on top of the woman face was an artifact that therefore the entire image was an artifact and therefore invalidated the woman's face. However on closer examination I discovered that the man to Lovelady's right in the 1st frame disappears in the 2nd frame. If you examine the shape and height of that man's forehead in the 1st frame it matches the shape and height of the elongated forehead. In short, the elongated forehead is the forehead of that man who disappears and ends up standing behind Prayer Man.

      Celluloid film does not make artifacts that big because it is a basic chemical reaction to light on a film surface that captures what is there and is a medium that isn't easy to create quirks that large on without explanation. ROKC tends to use the artifact claim for things it has trouble answering. They were never made to answer their artifact claim for the elongated forehead at a technical level. Meanwhile the elongated forehead has a simple explanation if you just look at the forehead of the man who disappears from the 1st frame and compare it to the elongated forehead in the 2nd frame. 

      Once you refute ROKC's artifact claim it follows simple logic that their one excuse to deny the obvious face of a woman in Davidson is removed. That means they have to account for what that obvious face is. Since the elongated forehead now has a simple explanation that means the incorrect artifact excuse they based on it is not longer good enough to deny Davidson:

 

    The Davidson GIF is in Barry Pollard's 9:34 post at this link:

 

               http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,13747.40.html

                  

Edited by Brian Doyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian,

The forum software allows each member to upload 1 MB of photos onto its server. This means that, depending upon the size and resolution of the photos, only a handful can be uploaded at a time.

The solution to this problem is to link to a photo placed on another server. That are a number of places you can upload your photos to. Many of us here use PhotoBucket. DropBox is another. Google Photos might work. There are others. Most give quite a bit of space for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian:

Please find here my comments yo your queries:

Q1. "I asked Mr Kamp to answer my response to his last post, he did not. 1) I asked you first Mr Stancak. I asked you to please identify what you consider to be Prayer Man's hair as shown in Kamp's posted Darnell image. You did not do so and responded by asking me to do computer image outlining that you yourself showed an unwillingness to do. It is my opinion that you are refusing to do so because of your awareness that any attempt you make at outlining what you consider to be hair on Prayer Man will prove my point. Your move here relieves you of having to account for what your own ROKC teammate saw so clearly that he was able to draw arrows to it. 2) It is not true that I am the only one who can see it. Duncan MacRae drew a fairly adequate outline of the woman's hair seen in Darnell. He did so by following the dark mass I am pointing out that was clear enough for him to draw an outline around. There are many others who admit it looks like a woman. Yourself included in this thread. A woman would possess the long hair I am pointing out. "

A. I have not promised to you or anyone to draw any contour around Prayar Man's hair because it would be just a guess. We see Prayer Man's hair line in the front part of the head, and that fits well with Oswald's hair line. The back of the head is in the dark area of the doorway where the signal is low. I would not be able to draw the hair line in the postero-lateral quadrant with full confidence. We can argue about what you or others see ad infinitum - it clearly leads nowhere. I admit that people may attribute different interpretations to my interpretation if a particular detail is blurred.

Q2: " Wrong. The Davidson 2 part gif I will post separately shows Prayer Man with 'his' shoulders in line parallel to the front face of the landing. For Prayer Man to have one foot on the step and one on the landing is not a position any human would hold for too long. Human behavior would make that individual step down completely on to the step and not leave one foot up on the landing while going through all the motions Prayer Man's arms are doing. It is important to note that Prayer Man's height never changes in all available images. "

A: It is difficult from the noisy Wiegman's image (the dark part of the doorway) to reconstruct exactly the course of the shoulder line. Should Prayer Man stand with both his feet on the first step, his left shoulder and left forearm would be lit by the sun light. I only see very tiny spots of light on the upper lateral aspects of Prayer man's forearm. This can be achieved if his left forearm parallels the line of the shadow cast by western wall. Therefore, although Prayer Man's shoulder line was aligned more with the plane crossing the glass door in Wiegman's still, the pattern of shadows can only be achieved if PM's trunk was still slightly rotated towards his left even if he stood with his right foot on the first step. These are minute details which is difficult to explain and even more difficult to believe without spending hundreds of hours on the doorway model.

Prayer Man did not stand in the doorway for too long. It may have been seconds of Wiegman's film and maybe less than two minutes after (covering also Darnell's period). He was allegedly seen by Occhus Campbell in the small storage room close to the the first floor stair about two minutes after the last shot. Thus, standing with one foot up and one foot one step down was not strenous at all.

Q3:

  "Second, you never answered my height argument. It proves Prayer Man can't be Oswald by your own example. If we hypothetically allow Prayer Man to be standing with one foot on the step we can draw a line from the top of Prayer Man's head over to Frazier and he comes up to about Frazier's chin (7 inches shorter than the top of Frazier's head). Since we know the Depository steps are 7 inches tall that would mean when Prayer Man stepped up to the landing he would be equal in height with the 6 foot tall Frazier - as a person who was 7 inches shorter would do if he rose up one 7 inch step. Since Oswald was 5 foot 9, and could never be equal in height with Frazier, this scientifically proves Prayer Man cannot be Oswald by itself.

       In the Gilbride posts we showed that Darnell's camera is at an approximate 20 degree angle or so to the portal. You still fail to grasp the basic point that your claim that Prayer Man is standing on the step commits him to a specific spot that is well forward on the landing (to the point of being on the step). Gilbride already posted that Prayer Man's head is in line with the aluminum frame. When you make a geometric triangulation of Prayer Man's position in the portal according to those landmarks he turns out to be too far from the wall to be leaning with folded arms. He would also have to be intersecting the sun plane at that position. Since he is not that proves that Prayer Man was always on the landing since his height doesn't change. Once you prove Prayer Man was on the landing then a direct height comparison with Frazier makes him well too short to be Oswald.  

          Mr Stancak, please answer what I have written in your next response. "

 

A: Please have a look on my 3D reconstruction which I posted on November 7. The height difference between the top of Frazier's head and PM's head was 9 inches. This height difference is accurately reproduced in my model. PM stood actually on the first step below the top landing, in no situation did he stand on the top landing. It was only his left foot which was on the top landing, however, this does not affect the relative height of Frazier and PM. PM did not stand on the top landing and therefore he could not reach with his head to the top of Frazier's head. My model tells exactly what we see in Darnell's still.

Prayer Man stood at the line of the front of the top landing, which means really in the front part of the top landing. I know it sometimes may look that he was back there close to the glass door, but he was not. An easy way to understand this aspect is to look at the distance between the red brick column in the western wall in front of the top landing: Prayer Man's right elbow joint is very close to the brick column. This could not be achieved should he stand in the back corner of the top landing. Should he stand at the back of doorway, there would be no light reflection on any part of PM's body because his body would be in the shadow cast by both the western wall and the ceiling; however, we see the light reflecting from the right hand (as a minimum).

 

Q4:  "Simply refuted by looking at MacRae's stabilized animation of Prayer Man in the portal. Is it still posted on the Education Forum? After seeing the movements Prayer Man is making it would be impossible to have one leg down on the step and bent. MacRae's animation showed a person who was standing flat-footed with both feet on the landing."

A: Please provide data, I have not seen any animation of that sort.

 

Q5:    "I'm sorry Mr Stancak but you show a lack of skill in analysis because even if your bent leg theory were true if Prayer Man were standing with a bent leg on a step that was 7 inches lower than the landing when he straightened that leg out and rose to the landing he would then be even taller than Frazier only proving my point even more.You're not answering the point of the 7 inch step. Please answer it. If what you are saying is true then when Prayer Man rose to the landing he would add the height of the 7 inch step and therefore be too tall to be Oswald. Do you understand this basic point? "

A: I understand the point well and have explained it in on many occasions. Prayer Man effectively stood on the first step (as far as his height is concerned relative to the top of Frazier's head) with his right foot, the left was on the top landing but this did not change the apparent height of PM.

Q6:  "Credible analysis would realize that Prayer Man's hand is glowing in Wiegman because it is on the edge of the sun plane. If you observe Darnell carefully you can see Prayer Man's hand is not glowing (though it is brighter because of sun exposure). What that means is Prayer Man has pulled back from the sun plane, just like Mr Stancak surmises when he says Prayer Man was making way for people coming up the stairs. The only place for Prayer Man to pull back from the sun plane is the landing according to Mr Stancak's own description. Once you establish Prayer Man is on the landing in Wiegman, and realize his height never changes in all images, it proves Prayer Man is standing on the landing in all images. "

A: Where is the credible analysis? Who decides if an analysis is credible - is it you? The contrast between the shadowy and light areas of the doorway was pretty sharp. We speak about pulling back an inch and the impact of the shadow  changes abruptly. It is difficult to visualise which is the reason why I contruct models.

Q7: "Again Mr Stancak, if you consult experts you will find they will confirm that black and white images contain spectral frequencies and data. Black and white are technically colors. I consider your above reply a deliberate oversimplification designed to avoid my arguments that the color tones in the lowest dark band on Prayer Man's hair and the top of his head, where we know there is hair, match because they are part of a visible cohesive mass. They will also match Frazier's hair that we know is hair.  "

A: Black and white light indeed have a frequency content because the light is in essence an electromagnetic medium. However, we are not reading in a photographic analysis directly the frequency spectra but only the values of R-G-B channel in colour pictures or a value of grey channel in black and white pictures. I have explained that just reading  or observing the level of grey in a black and white picture does not tell you anything about the identity of colours of underlying objects if two distant pixel would show identical values of grey.

 

Q8:     "Your 'cursor' argument is a gross oversimplification designed to get around the high tech spectral color analysis an expert would apply to the image and narrow down the range of possibilities for what it is. That expert would quickly agree that the dark band you are saying you don't see (even though Kamp drew arrows to it) is part of one cohesive mass that constitutes hair and is proven so not only by the naked eye but by color frequency matching as well. "

A: What expert? Please bring on your expert.  Please, show me one "spectral color analysis" of a black and white picture.  

Q9: Your reference to the work of members of ROKC should be addressed directly to the Authors of particular threads/posts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


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

×