Jump to content
The Education Forum
Guest Duncan MacRae

PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

Recommended Posts

I agree - my hunch is that he was leaning on the handrail. In the next image from the film it looks like he quickly decides to look up Houston Street toward the camera filming. Remarkably, PM appears to still be in the same position he was in the earlier image but just lowers his arm

Steps_1.gif

Where did Black Tie Man go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree - my hunch is that he was leaning on the handrail. In the next image from the film it looks like he quickly decides to look up Houston Street toward the camera filming. Remarkably, PM appears to still be in the same position he was in the earlier image but just lowers his arm

Steps_1.gif

Where did Black Tie Man go?

He hasn't been pasted on yet. He's still waiting in some CIA photo lab. :)

But seriously, Robert, do you still believe PM is holding a camera? It sure looks in the above GIF like he's lifting a camera. But I'm not sure he's lifting both arms. One arm seems to go up higher than the other. I'm wondering what your thoughts are now.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BP: Where's black tie man?

The green man:

black-tie-man-green-weigman-film_zpsx39z

Comparing Altgens 6 with the above, it sure seems that the green man has to be Black Tie Man. But the green man doesn't appear to be wearing a dark Jacket.

Maybe the green man is Oswald, and Black Tie Man was pasted over him in Altgens 6 to hide him.

Don't mind me.... I'm just cavalierly speculating.

But seriously, isn't the green man awfully small? He makes PM look large.

And BTW, where's Frazier? He seems to be neither in this nor in Altgens 6.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree - my hunch is that he was leaning on the handrail. In the next image from the film it looks like he quickly decides to look up Houston Street toward the camera filming. Remarkably, PM appears to still be in the same position he was in the earlier image but just lowers his arm

Steps_1.gif

Where did Black Tie Man go?

Wiegman%20scancrop.jpg

womand_zpsf7d7a71b.jpg

Edited by Robin Unger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree - my hunch is that he was leaning on the handrail. In the next image from the film it looks like he quickly decides to look up Houston Street toward the camera filming. Remarkably, PM appears to still be in the same position he was in the earlier image but just lowers his arm

Steps_1.gif

Where did Black Tie Man go?

Wiegman%20scancrop.jpg

womand_zpsf7d7a71b.jpg

Well that certainly looks like Black Tie Man. I mean, as best as one could expect at the low resolution.

Thanks Robin. BTW, do you have an opinion on where PM is standing?

Also, where is Frazier?

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things I noticed. Lovelady and PM appear to be very similar in height, when Lovelady is on the top step. Black Tie Man looks far too heavy to be Shelley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

So Richard, how did things go with your lawyers, Cheetham and How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard,


I'm reading your Inside Job story and you've done a really nice job, with everything well documented. I do want to point out one thing though. When you go to the page, it takes a few seconds to load the embedded PDF. You also give the viewer the option to just let the PDF open in the PDF reader in the browser. That's a good idea.


But the embedded version is pretty awkward to use. For example, after it finally loads and when I scroll down to read and then hit the bottom, then click on the next page, the browser does not automatically move back up to the top. This forces me to manually scroll up to the top to begin reading the page.


My suggestion is why take your content and make genuine web pages with it, then of course continue to have a link to the PDF. That way you can make your images larger too so folks can make sende of them, and you also won't have the awkward embedded PDF.


Otherwise, a nice story with some very interesting information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is over.

Where's the proof Richard? The proof that Prayer Man is short? Maybe I'm dense, but I couldn't follow what you were saying above. Where can I see easy-to-follow proof using graphics?

This certainly isn't over in my mind. I'm still on the fence.

P.S. This link is not working: http://www.jfkinsidejob.com/pm/ If I remember, I will try again later.

EDIT: I tried the link again, several hours later, and it still doesn't work.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steps_1.gif

Lovelady appears to be of the same height or just slightly taller than PM, and I would put this down to PM being at the very back of the 48" wide landing, and Lovelady being at the very front.

The camera is obviously lower than these two subjects, and this makes the closer subject appear taller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all we know, Lee Oswald could have been sitting in the shade on a tall stool, busily taking photographs for his alibi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all we know, Lee Oswald could have been sitting in the shade on a tall stool, busily taking photographs for his alibi.

Precisely. I think it is only fair that we admit that, if the photo is too fuzzy to ID PM, it is also too fuzzy to tell whether or not PM is standing erect, or standing at the front or the rear of the top landing.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...