PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

[Greg Parker]

I am absolutely in favor of academic discussion- it produces a refinement of ideas. But there is a greater purpose to this PrayerMan debate that I would like to address in this post.

It's a new year and we really need to get the show on the road as far as obtaining a clearer copy of the Darnell film image. Meaning that we have to get the Sixth Floor Museum to allow access to the film- specifically Megan Bryant, who's the Director of Collections and Intellectual Property.

As far as I understand, Bart Kamp & the ROKC forum have been doing the heavy lifting as far as pushing for access- and with them being mainly overseas, they're fairly easy for the Museum to ignore.

This morning I have sent off a query to the Dallas law firm of Gagnon, Peacock & Vereeke, who advertise themselves as "aggressive intellectual property representation". I asked them whether a Power of Attorney can be served upon the Museum, since it is historical material and the public should have fair use of it. And how much $$ that would cost.

I need information as to how one performs a scan on a film like that. It is an artifact created in November 1963 and we wouldn't want to injure it in any way. I'm not a techie or geek. There must be some kind of gizmo available that can make a high-quality scan. There must be an area on that floor at the Museum, at least in the building somewhere, where this can be accomplished in a few hours' time.

I don't see a better alternative than to try to interest Robert Groden to perform this scan. All I have is his publisher's address, for JFK: Absolute Proof. Does anyone know his P.O. Box, or e-mail? If so, please send me a personal message. By at least Monday morning I will have at least a letter in the mail to Groden's publisher.

Your input is welcome and I will keep you posted.

The museum does not have the needed equipment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_picture_film_scannerThere are not many places that have the right equipment for what is needed here.

Groden is not even a last resort.

Your understanding of what is happening is out of date. Jim diEugenio is now making inquiries on our behalf.

Good luck with the PoA. Despite my skepticism, all reasonable efforts are welcome.

[Michael Cross]

What a disappointment.

IMO, Duncan should not have been allowed to place his paper up before Greg's was up. For the simple reason that Sean Murphy first predicated this concept. So in deference to his very good thread, actually started by Bill, Greg should have gone first.

And then Duncan his, and then the debate would begin as to a comparative analysis.

Agreed. This preemptive thread was in error IMO.

[David G. Healy]

MonacoFfilm lab in San Francisco for one. The do all measure of film transfers. The frame should go to 4 or 8K RAW

[Richard Gilbride]

Maybe the Texas Film Commission in Austin has one?

[Michael Cross]

What a disappointment.

IMO, Duncan should not have been allowed to place his paper up before Greg's was up. For the simple reason that Sean Murphy first predicated this concept. So in deference to his very good thread, actually started by Bill, Greg should have gone first.

And then Duncan his, and then the debate would begin as to a comparative analysis.

Agreed. This preemptive thread was in error IMO.

Tough

Come up with any of your "original research" for us to verify?

No?

Destroyed it did you? SOP for most legitimate researchers to be sure.

[Ed LeDoux]

Thanks to all for your interest in getting a scan of the Darnell copy.
The likely resolution is 5K for a scan.
This would future proof the scan.
It will capture edge markings.

Numerous labs have the machines of various flavors, scanstations being what we are after.

In LA there is Pro-8 , Spectra, Cinelicious and Yale. Of them Cinelicious is preferred.
In Maryland are also numerous 5K Lasergraphics Scanstations.
Boston's Gamma Ray Digital has a Scanstation. etc

Kodak does have a list. Not sure if its up to date.
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/support/laboratories_directory/index.htm?blitz=off

As David said it should really be a 8K scan, two-times oversampled and down rez your work files to 4K.
FilmLight in LA has a Northlight2 for 8K scanning.
http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/contacts/locations/locations.php

But here is the deal.
Darnell clip is a few hundred frames(correct?) a very short clip, but we only need the doorway and a few frames after that for the Lovelady/Shelley "stroll"
So a scan of exact frames could be made rather than pop for a full film scan in 8K as that would be cost prohibitive.
This is a different animal than we are discussing so keep that in mind. How about 11K 4sec burns of these frames.

A scan in Dallas would be perfect should we do a full run. I don't know anyone in the big D that has a machine >2k.
I believe 16mm would need minimum 3k to fully capture film grains and any higher is merely preserving it, edge marks, edges for stabilization, and archiving images data FWIW. Thus a 4K Scanity scan will be adequate.

Duncan, Say after me,
"Film Does Not Have Pixels So It Does Not Have Pixel Resolution." rinse and repeat.

Duncan you have the unsubstantiated claims here.
You have been shown to hold an untenable position of determining the sex of an unknown person, or unknown to you as you have failed to give a name.
Its been shown you both say the image is worthless for determining whom that person is and at the same exhalation describe a woman in minute detail.
Hypocritical is the term that Merriam-Webster brings to my attention.
Since you can show no single person that can be in PM's position, and you obviously place Oswald elsewhere, It shows an ingrained bias to every single piece of evidence placing Oswald on the first floor and out with Shelley in front.
Good show mate! Keep up those standards.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Ed LeDoux

[James R Gordon]

This thread, along with Autopsy thread led by Rober as well as Greg's thread which will come soon, - and I hope my own thread on Connally - are supposed to be examples of debate and discussion on a higher level.

Spending the entire page 6 on Avatars - posts which have now been hidden - is making a total mockery of the thread.

If that is all that members can find to debate, then there is no point in having this thread.

If there is merit in this thread, then it deserves a higher level of discussion - and if that is not possible, then I will close this thread.

I believe in Research Threads and it is my hope that they would encourage a higher level of debate and discussion. And discussion on Avatars is not worthy of general threads let alone Research Threads.

Please return to the level of debate this thread deserves.

James

[Jon G. Tidd]

James,

The debates on this forum are, as I view them, mainly opinion contests. Given that, I don't how debate could be elevated except in matters of respect for opposing opinion.

I've looked at a lot of JFK research. Mainly what I've found are temples of dead-end conclusions.

I believe, as I've written here, that there are few verifiable facts pertaining to the JFK assassination. We don't, for example, know with certainty the nature, extent, or location of JFK's injuries. Given this, I think research threads are doomed to failure. All they're going to produce is a battle of opinions.

[Greg Parker]

I believe, as I've written here, that there are few verifiable facts

Kafka's got nothing on you, Jon.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Kafka, Greg?

Kafka had a vivid imagination.

I'm a mere observer.

[Greg Parker]

Kafka, Greg?

Kafka had a vivid imagination.

I'm a mere observer.

Funny, I have it the other way around.

[Sandy Larsen]

The debates on this forum are, as I view them, mainly opinion contests.

Many of these debates are between those who are good at fitting pieces of a puzzle together and those who are not. On the surface the debates can appear to be opinion contests, when in reality they're not.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Sandy,

Keeping with your puzzle analogy, I've observed many of the battles are over the pieces -- their existence and shape.

For example, Duncan maintains PP is a woman. That's his opinion. Others maintain PP is a man. That's their opinion.

[Darren Hastings]

I doubt Duncan seriously believes PP is a woman.

Just sayin'

[Jon G. Tidd]

Darren,

I think Duncan wants to believe PP is a woman.

Just as I want to believe, and therefore do believe, there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and to frame Oswald for the murder.

Can I prove there was such a conspiracy? No. Can anyone? IMO, no. Can Duncan prove PP is a woman? No.

Opinion vs. Opinion