Chris Davidson

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.

14 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

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.

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

11 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Can you please clearly answer my question if it would be a short person (5'3'') or a tall person (5'10'') that would match Prayer Man? Only one of them fits Prayer Man because the arm heights would be unequal in spite of the tops of their heads being on the same plane.

 

 

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.

4 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I guess we can agree that Prayer Man could not be a short person around 5'3'' (with shoes on) standing on the top landing?

Not necessarily. imo

The BWF/Oswald photos set a short person at 5'3 1/2" and the taller at 5"10 3/4"

On 9/22/2022 at 2:48 PM, Chris Davidson said:

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

14 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris:

your animation feels dead realistic, I have to say, even if it is not a proof.

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.

On 9/20/2022 at 12:08 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris:

your new estimate of 5' 5'' (I am rounding to the next inch as we do not really have accuracy of tenths of inches; my estimates have accuracy of about 1/2'') should be wrong in my opinion, and your former estimate of 5' 3'' would be very close to my estimate of 5' 2 1/2'' for the height of plane crossing the top of Prayer man's head.

Please consider how a tall person 5' 5'' would look like when standing on the top landing. You can 1) subtract a value 9' 1/2'' (the height of head in a male of Fraziers' body height) from Frazier's body height because Prayer Man's head reached only to the shoulder level or lower aspect of his chin (should be the same levels), and you get a numeric estimate of 5' 2 1/2' (Frazier 6') ' or 5' 3'' (Frazier 6' 1/2''). 2) you can also compare appearances of two people of unequal heights standing on the same plane using an online tool, e.g. https://www.mrinitialman.com/OddsEnds/Sizes/compsizes.xhtml, and there may be even better tools out there. A person 5' 5'' would reach to about mouth level of a person 6' or 6' 1/2''. 3) I was able to verify my estimate by setting a body heights of two mannequins in Scketchup to 6' and 5' 2 1/2'' to verify my estimate. 4) you can have a feet metric scale with feet and inches as a vertically orientated tape measure, and get a picture of normal sized male, and scale him to 6' (or 6' 1/2'') and again in the way that the next image would reach the body height at the level of the first person's shoulder line, and read the height value for the shorter person.

Here is a comparison combining methods 3 and 4.

 

 

 

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:

7 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Chris, that rise, to me, looks more like an 8" than a 7", but I don't have the ability to measure it--just going by eye.

30 or more years ago it was quite common to have risers higher than what is usual these days (7"-7.5")--especially on exterior stairs.  Don't know how that may effect your thinking...

If I remember correctly, Andrej may have taken the measurements used to create the model from a document listing dimensions of the doorway area.

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:

On 9/17/2022 at 8:34 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris could speak for himself if he could endorse my analysis. I remember he determined the height of the plane crossing the top of Prayer Man's head as 5' 3'' which is in almost perfect agreement with my estimate of 5' 2 5/8''.

Independent validation is always useful and adds to the validity of the model-based analysis.

 

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".

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris could speak for himself if he could endorse my analysis. I remember he determined the height of the plane crossing the top of Prayer Man's head as 5' 3'' which is in almost perfect agreement with my estimate of 5' 2 5/8''.

Independent validation is always useful and adds to the validity of the model-based analysis.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I would like to make some sense out of this thread. It started with Chris posting Willis #21 slide with two ladies, perhaps suggesting that one of them could be "Prayer Person", three question marks. There was also a hint from the past that another woman, Sarah Stanton, could be Prayer Man. I hope all agree that each of these ladies has been rightfully discarded as Prayer Man. The pink lady in Willis 21# was too short and her light-coloured dress would not match Prayer Man clothes. The lady behind the glass door would not match Prayer Man owing to her rich hair creating a roof and a specific hairline so much different to Prayer Man. Sarah Stanton had rich, light-coloured hair and her hair exclude her as a candidate right away. Thanks to everyone who helped in bringing on her photograph which eventually was the decisive piece of data to exclude Sarah Stanton as Prayer Man. There are good hints and witness testimonies allowing to estimate Sarah Stanton's location quite precisely given limited resolution of the photographs, especially in areas at the back of the top landing.

Then there were two futher "versions" of Darnell still which were also brought here from another forum, with a comment and a drawing by Mr. Hackerott pointing to very feminine features of Prayer Man, making a case for Prayer Man being actually a Woman. These pictures have never been discussed previously on our Forum, causing me to think what was going on.

It appears that the "versions" of the famous Darnell still we all used to view and analyse are actually different frames of Darnell film. In the left-hand panel, cropped views of three pictures are shown, labelled "jfkassfor.", "red-arrow", and "2013", with two former pictures being those brought here from jfkassassinationforum.com, and the latter being the best version of Darnell still available from the very start of Prayer Man saga. The right-hand panel shows the corresponding frames identified in Darnell film (the version of Darnell film posted on this forum by Robin Unger in "Oswald leaving the TSBD?" thread about in 2016). Clearly, we deal with three different frames of Darnell film, not with different versions of the same frame. The two frames brought here recently have never been analysed because of motion blur distortions.

 

To show Prayer Man in all three frames, in Darnell original film and in their parallel versions, the next figure shows  cropped views of Prayer Man in six variants. The lower row are the frames from original Darnell film - I have resized them and added a bit of light equally to each of three frames for better visibility. It is possible to appreciate the heavy distortions in Prayer Man's figure in frames "jfkassfor." and "red-arrow", and absence of this distortion in "2013".  The top panel shows Prayer Man in the pictures that have been brought here from the other forum. Heavy photograpic manipulations were needed to get from original film frames to "jfkassfor." and "red-arrow", with "red-arrow" being processed much more than "red-arrow". Please note Prayer Man's thin right forearm in "red-arrow"; this were the dues needed to be paid to reach the figure we see. 

 

 

 

 

 

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:

10 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

The latest arrivals of processed versions of Darnell, advertised as original stills, look so similar to actions of the intelligence/media in other facets of the case. To tackle a promising trail, one or more alternative stories to the true one are made up, and the researchers themselves then bury both the valid and invalid piece of evidence.  

 

 

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

On 9/11/2022 at 3:08 PM, Chris Davidson said:

I'll ask James if the filter enhanced version is more indicative of what he remembers seeing a few years back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

James' reply to my inquiry:

On 9/10/2022 at 8:53 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Credit to Alan J. Ford (Duncan's Forum) for posting the "Original" in this collage some months ago.

It is a frame from Darnell. The source is unknown. I believe Alan said it was floating around the internet when he obtained it.

I was a little reserved at first, but then remembered James' comments about the neckline, from his viewing at the Sixth Floor Museum a few years earlier.

I enlarged the original somewhat and applied a couple of different filters to it.

 

 

The person who posted the original at left was Alan Ford (NOT ALAN J. FORD) who is also a member of Duncan's forum.

My apologies and thanks to AJF, as I hadn't realized in all this time that two members had very similar names.

17 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

You can bet I'll be viewing it. I hope to be there for 2 week to give me the opportunity to visit several Universities in Texas. I'll be on the hunt of never-before-published photos and material. I think it would be possible to ask the 6FM archivist to obtain a few screenshots so the researcher can look at it on the screen. I think they should get them ready so researchers can view them right away.

That's nice to hear.

Good luck with the search endeavor.

I've emailed James, just waiting for a response.

8 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

James' post:

James H. used VLC (movie player) to view the Darnell film at the 6FM. I am making the assumption that it was actually a film (not photos) that he studied.

The neckline description is very puzzling because it agrees with the filter enhanced Alan F. provided/ROKC website (thanks for locating that Denis M)version.

I'll ask James if the filter enhanced version is more indicative of what he remembers seeing a few years back.

I'm wondering if James is the only researcher who has viewed the Darnell film located at the 6FM???

Long sleeves vs short sleeves.

The white object is a sun reflection off the glass door handle.

Added on edit. It appears to be the same object in both photos, yet the woman at left still appears to have her right arm in some type of object holding position. imo

5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

It's sleep time.

James' post:

It's sleep time.

23 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2359.msg72598.html#msg72598

A few more that might work unless either is the same from the original posting.