Chris Davidson

Thanks for the link Micah. I encourage watching a particular segment starting at 22:20 for approx 3.5 minutes. Then, take into consideration the sprocket hole span of extant z207-212.

Moved to a different topic.

https://vimeo.com/790881325 No matter how hard you try to make the Capitol Police scapegoats with silly ratios.

Matthew, Your logical fallacy theory gets filed under illogical thinking.

Getting back to reality. https://vimeo.com/760455350

An easier view of the metamorphosis:

If there is a third person standing between the two women, a candidate could be the woman in the other Willis photo. We have half of her body and since we are symmetrical, I just flipped her horizontally and rotated her 1.5° so her scoopneck aligned symetrically then increased her size 115% for relative headsize size match. Supplied the scoopneck Darnell version.

Don't care for moving comparisons. Cloning is an alternative. Let me try it this way. My guess is that neither of the obvious two women is PrayerPerson. But, PrayerPerson might be between them (dark short sleeved shirt) as I have hinged PrayerPerson's left elbow and arm, although the left arm from the Willis photo is at a greater downward angle. It also seems like you can see part of the shoulder sleeve attached to the left arm. Added on Edit: Or, that is the right arm of the woman behind the opened glass door but it looks somewhat low to be hers.

Andrej, Real Photos do help.

30" inseam + 9.5" head + 32" torso + 1/2" = 72"

I don't know which one because I can't see PrayerPerson's legs or inseams. 34" inseam + 9" head + 27" torso + 1/2" shoe = 70.5" 27" inseam + 9" head + 27" torso + 1/2" shoe = 63.5"

Andrej, Are you trying to convince me that there are individuals who don't possess longer torso/shorter leg ratios? For instance, what does your research show BWF 6ft body ratio to be? Mr. BALL - How tall are you? Mr. FRAZIER - I am 6-foot, a little bit over 6-foot. Mr. BALL - Do you know what your arm length is? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't. Mr. BALL - We can probably measure it before you leave. I assume this is without shoes on, but who knows for sure.

Not necessarily. imo The BWF/Oswald photos set a short person at 5'3 1/2" and the taller at 5"10 3/4"

Cudos to the wife. She is 5'10" tall without shoes. She is 5'10 1/2+ with those shoes on. Standing on the mini tailgate of a 99' Landcruiser which is 34" above the ground. Shot using an Iphone12 with the 26mm wide angle setting. Approx 67ft away. 76ft was preferred, but there was a parked car in the way.

Andrej, I used the real photos to show the mismatch in forehead hairline that blurry PrayerPerson possesses vs Oswald. The same comparison(but no mismatch) can be made in regards to blurry BWF. Otherwise, there is no way to know where the top of one's head ends and the chin of another begins. If the hairline over the forehead is a mismatch, this affects the true height of the individual.

Andrej, Since the heads/faces are blurry, I always thought it would be better to use actual photos of BWF/Oswald for the comparisons/models:

Thanks Paul, Making the assumption that the stairs are the same as back in 63' Added on edit: The last step is a 7.25" rise not 7" which puts the person, if standing on the landing at 5'4 8/10". imo I found this again, credit to Ray:

The Willis photo(imo) provides a key measuring element that was not available in previous photos when I arrived at 5'3". You could say it was a top down measurement and as accurate as I could find at the time. The TSBD stair area was built level and plumb. I would suggest creating/adjusting a graphic with this in mind. Next, take the height difference(use pixels) between the Oswald-Frazier height lines and compare that to the height difference(use pixels) between the landing and next step down(referencing the red lines in Willis) and see what you get. This is what has bothered me for a long time because it made it appear that if Oswald is PrayerPerson, his legs would have to be longer, allowing him to be on that next step down. Using the Willis photo, knowing where that next step down is, I arrive at someone on the landing at 5'5 1/2" tall or someone on the next step down at 6' provided that last step is a 7" rise. I used 72.5" for BWF height, accounting for 1/2" shoe rise. Added on edit: The last step is a 7.25" rise not 7" which puts the person, if standing on the landing at 5'4 8/10".

Andrej, I have no problems with the analysis you've presented. But, as is my nature, I try to introduce alternative explanations to existing hypothesis. If you are correct that PrayerPerson is Oswald, your work will hold against any/all variables. Arising from that is the independent validation which occurs. So, I'll provide this endorsement(gif) with the caveat that Darnell is still a blurry frame. The Willis photo is also valuable because the LOS is the closest I've found to the Darnell frame. There is a height difference between the two cameras but it doesn't play a major role. I have a few other concerns besides James H. 6thFM neckline description/shirt. I'll use the Willis frame for conveying it a little later on.

Willis was also an indication that the only people in and around the TSBD steps on film/video that wore short sleeves and no collars were all women. There has never been and never will be a reference to Sarah Stanton by me, claiming she was Prayer Person. In fact, here's another woman added, fitting that dress combination. The men all were either wearing dress suits or shirts with collars, long sleeved shirts/sweaters. Hard to tell with BWF. Prayer Person is wearing a short sleeve garment. If it's Oswald, what/whose shirt was he wearing?

Same frame from Robin's collection as the one above from Alan with my red box designations:

The word ‘original” was used to denote the frame I obtained from Alan’s posting. It meant I did not manipulate the frame in any way, not that it was somehow an unaltered frame. I thought it was quite obvious that the frame I labeled original, which already had a red arrow on it would not be considered an original. When I applied a few different filters to it, and properly labeled those filters along side the original I received from Alan, I made the assumption that most would also realize I had manipulated only those two. The point being, the 6th FM retains (more than likely) the best generation Darnell footage to view. Until a better quality version surfaces, I trust James’ neckline description from the version he viewed at the 6th FM. If there are other researchers who have viewed the 6th FM copy, I encourage them to post their recollections.

Conversation refresher: First Part : https://vimeo.com/749455547 Second Part: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SA973tSThpgZ2xuqYfNHmfNlEyBjOI1r/view?usp=sharing