Andrej Stancak

Kudos to Craig Lamson for coming up with a superior way of checking for photo differences. The overlay method doesn't work for me. (No offense Andrej. I thought overlaying was the way to go too.) That said, Lamson's animated gif is a bit misleading as there is nothing in the animation that is stationary in size and location. Everything is clearly big, small, big, small. But subtle differences can still be made out. However, I still believe a tripod was used. The near-far comparisons are still very, very close. I think the reason they change is because the camera shifted slightly between shots. Nobody could keep the camera as still as what we see without a tripod. (If Lamson tweaked his animated gif so that the size and location of SOMETHING, ANYTHING didn't shift, we would see a lot less movement in the gif. IMO.) Right away I can think of one possible exception to the use of the tripod, and that is to quickly take three successive shots without moving a muscle. So what can we conclude? The proof of forgery still stands. The stairway shadows on the house still indicate that the sun didn't move noticeably between shots. Yet the shadows from the rife and newspapers are inconsistent with one another. This proves forgery, as I demonstrated earlier. A tripod was likely used and three separate photos were taken. My proof of forgery means that at least one Oswald (and shadow) was pasted on later. IMO all three were pasted on. Marina most likely lied about taking the photo. (Conceivably she could have snapped the shutter as the camera sat upon the tripod. But probably not.) Am I forgetting anything? Sandy: where did you post your proof of impossible shadows? Would the shadows need to move noticeably if shots were e.g. one minute apart? I have not looked at shadows properly yet because I could do it only by building a 3D model of the whole scene with all details, and this takes a long time to accomplish. There are different scenarios of forgery ranging from a complete composite with Lee Oswald not being involved at all in taking the pictures, to a minor version in which Lee Oswald was indeed photographed and only e.g., a broad chin being copied onto his face to allow future plausible deniability. The use of a tripod: do you take it for granted or is it still something which needs to be proven? I have not spent enough work to be able to say anything conclusive, and would therefore be interested in empirical evidence refuting the work of HSCA and further work alluded to in Mr. Craig Lamson's note.

Tom; Thanks for sending Craig Lamson's note. If the image was not genuine then that is not a game changer at all... The picture of the backyard with no person in it is from Jack White's collection, and it has been pointed to by Sandy in another thread. http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfkwhite/id/3180 I will now edit my previous post not to mislead people. However, it seems that the only one who has been misled was me...

Well, here is slide 114 from Jack White's collection. Thanks to Sandy for posting the link in another thread. So, after all Mr. White did leave his most important images and results in a database. The slide 114 from Mr. White's collection is a game changer: (please see my EDIT and CORRECTION below) This backyard picture was taken at the same time as the rest of pictures and stands in perfect alignment with CE133A. Please find below overlays of slide 114 (plain background) with CE133 with 30%, 50% and 70% blending of CE133A. At 30%: At 50%: At 70%: All lines and details are in perfect alignment in the plain backyard picture and in CE133. This can only be achieved using a tripod, no doubts in my mind. If Mr. White had the plain backyard picture at his disposal, it was quite straightforward to figure out that composite pictures were made. One cannot take two pictures at different instants (after turning the knob which turns the film to a new field) from a hand held camera with this perfect alignment. A tripod was used. Marina did not speak the truth about the backyard pictures since she has claimed to manipulate the camera. Importantly, the existence of such a crucial picture as the picture of backyard with no person in it was not mentioned either by Warren Commission or the HSCA. The commissioners and experts realised that this picture would expose this fraud and Oswald's framing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT and CORRECTION: my enthusiasm for the picture with no person in it has evaporated after Tom posted a message by Craig Lamson. Craig explains that the picture in slide 114 has been digitally prepared for Oliver Stone film by removing man's figure from one of backyard photographs. So, please do not let be misled by the obvious correspondence of slide 114 and CE133A as I did. There is nothing wrong to overlay the two pictures, however, the implications were wrong.

Tom: I should be able to do the overlay using the two prepared images above. I can also show a difference map highlighting the pixels which are different in the two pictures. A simple overlay may work better if one or both images is tainted, e.g. yellow/blue. It appears that 133A is sharper than 133B, maybe 133A would be the generic picture, and 133B its clone. In the meantime, I was also thinking about the possibility that someone took the three picture whilst standing at the same spot and having the camera strap hung over his/her neck which would allow under certain circumstances almost identical views on repeated exposures. Let us explore the issue further, it is worthy.

Tommy, Jack White has further photos of Roscoe White. Yet even the few photos you posted show how different the same person can look over the passage of time. Also -- the Marine photo of Roscoe White that you posted is very blurry, taken with inferior equipment, and so that makes it very difficult to draw a generality about Roscoe's appearance. Notice how thin Roscoe looks in that final Marine mug shot that you posted. We should get more pictures -- but that lumpy right wrist is no coincidence, IMHO. Regards, --Paul I wonder whether Mr. Jack White left his notes or any other kind of written record of his research. Mr. White was also a member of this forum - is there not any thread in which he would explain details of his research. His research was pioneering, however, a lack of proper written record makes it very complicated for new generation of researchers. It may be out of context of this thread, however, I think we need a peer reviewed and properly edited JFK assassination journal in which solid pieces of research (such as Mr. Jack White's) would be published in the form or articles. Published articles would either be commented on a forum or receive editor-approved comments which would be also published in the journal. Such JFK journal would not substitute a more spontaneous and creative forum, however, it would ensure that some invaluable data would be properly archived and also quoted.

Tom: Congratulations on your research which illustrates well Jack White's view that the background in the three backyard pictures was identical and only the human figure and its shadows changed. Your research not only accords Mr. White's conclusion, it also objects findings of HSCA experts which have looked on the background in the backyard pictures and allegedly found no proof of fakery. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf Frankly, there are so many possibilities as to how the backyard pictures were produced that almost any theory is a guess at this stage. I would propose to overlay the backgrounds after rotating, resizing and cropping to identical field of view. I am not sure I myself would be able to do it quickly due to my job duties, however, I hope that someone will. If your findings of an identical background is confirmed, then we have two options: 1) Marina did not tell that a tripod was used, and/or she never attended this photographic session. A perjury? , or 2) only one picture was taken and that picture (Marina still could have taken it) was used to clone the rest of backyard pictures. If this would be true, I would vote for 133A as the "genuine" one, and the rest to be the clones. What is obvious by viewing the pictures is a very different head/face in 133B compared to 133A - its is difficult to believe that the heads belonged to the same man.

Brian: I never confirmed the reality of the female face which you claim is the only real head in Wiegman's frame 133. I concluded that the face you promote results from 1) low signal and a photographic/digital artifact manifested in the region where "your" female head allegedly occurs, 2) pareidolia as lines and shapes not really originating from a real human face make a visual impression of a head, 3) visual illusion (bistable figure). In none of my messages did I endorse your view. You pointed to a visual phenomenon which Duncan has brought earlier, and you received a feedback from members of this forum. Please count the number of forum members who got convinced by your arguments. You will count zero. Doesn't it tell you that your story is not strong enough? Notably, the "elongated" head cannot be a "double exposure" or something copied from a GIF. It cannot transpire from a GIF because we have the original frame provided by Chris Davidson, and that frame does show the "elongated" head which all participants of this thread except you agree is the main human figure in frame 133. Your comments on ROKC and on respected researchers and their work are most inappropriate, in particular because these people are not around and cannot defend themselves. Taking advantage from absence of people whilst negatively commenting on them is cowardice. Your posts reveal that you have a deep problem, an obsession, with the theory of Mr. Murphy which many including myself consider as a major breakthrough in JFK research in the past few years. However, this forum should not provide anyone an outlet for such motivations. I am afraid that we came to the end of the discussion on this particular figure in frame 133. You have not brought enough clear and unequivocal evidence, and in all fairness you could not - the image in question contains so little information in the critical region that anything occurring there has very limited and conditional value. I would suggest that you refrain from posting on this issue until you gather additional evidence in support of your views. You may have noted that this thread was dormant before your arrival some two weeks ago. The reason is that no one had any new data to discuss, and I find such attitude towards posting correct. Let us post messages that have some original content, are not repetitive, and do not create an impasse.

Thank you, Brian, for explaining your standpoint again.

Brian: 1. I indeed can and actually have to generate my own image of the human figure and the doorway to check whether the one posted by Chris and Duncan was a genuine picture. I find the small image with a green arrow frequently discussed in previous posts as a deliberate presentation of only a part of the image which excluded from view the large "elongated" head. The rest of figure, the "female" face of yours and the reflected one (red head in my post) appear to correspond well in both Duncan's and my versions. 2. We disagree on a double exposure issue. Do you mean the film frame got stuck in the camera for a moment and it was therefore exposed again? Then you would need to see the signs of double exposure all over the picture. Can you? 3. Both the yellow face and blue "face" are very noisy. This area of the picture was almost in complete darkness in the eye of the camera. This is only us who pour light and do all possible effects to make it visible. However, the film has registered too little of information. Therefore, the shapes will be heavily compromised and objects which are symmetric in reality would not be such on a film frame. 4. Please try to view the picture with yellow head on a large and good quality screen (I used a 22 inch HP monitor). One dark circle is where the right eye would be, therefore, I placed a yellow circle there. The left eye is confounded with a horizontal dark line, however, an oval object can anyway be seen on the place where the left eye would be. It is distorted, indeed, which I have emphasised by drawing an ellipse instead of a circle. I doubt you would see these details on a 15.4 inch laptop or smaller. 5. The same as (3). Too much noise to be able to say anything about the shapes and objects there. You see a nose and a mouth which are only a game of your mind. 6. This point does not relate to my work. 7. We do not discuss the "sharper" frame of the GIF anymore. We have the original frame which Chris has used to create the GIF.

Brian: I have not been a part of the button discussion taking place earlier in this thread. As far as the elongated head is concerned, please note that the image provided by Chris is a screenshot of a video. The video was stopped and a screenshot was made. Thus, there is no double exposure in this process which would trivially explain the presence of the "elongated" head. I think there is no way to to persuade you or just to seed a grain of doubt into your mind that the the image in question may not be such a great proof of Prayer Woman. It is all right though because people have the right to believe in what they believe even if it may not be the truth. I have produced a bit brighter and less contrast images from Chris'es frame because this level of brightness allows to view all details of the doorway and figure as they were. If anyone would wish to mix the brightness and contrast to exactly match Chris'es small picture with a face, I would recommend to start by downloading the file using the link which Chris posted yesterday. Please let me know if I can do anything more in clarifying this unusual problem, however, I think I have already said all what I wanted on the topic of a female face in Wiegman's frame 133.

I would like to thank Chris for providing the link to the image which he has used in his animated GIFs, and for giving further details. I did not have access to this particular version of Wiegman's frame 133. I have downloaded the generic image which was used to show the alleged female face and analysed it with a simple tool called Smart Photo Fix in Corel PaintshopProX8. The tool allows to brighten or darken the whole image and to selectively increase or decrease the shadows and the light parts of the picture. The picture below is the crop of the doorway with the original, unprocessed picture in the left panel and the brightness correction added in the right panel. I have not resized the picture. So, now we can view properly the critical part of Wiegman's frame. The head area (right panel) clearly shows distortions which may have contributed to the confusion about this head. The next picture shows four panels. The bottom-right one is again the original picture, cropped to see the head and the body and arms with greater details. It is worthy to spend a minute or two just viewing the picture. I can see three heads in this picture, however, only one of them, in my view, is the true one. The head seen by Brian and Duncan is highlighted with blue lines in the top left panel. The head which in my opinion is true Prayer Man's head is highlighted with yellow lines in the top right panel. Please note that the two darker circular spots below the lower contour of the "yellow" head are actually the eyes in the "blue" head. The "Duncan-Brian's" head resulted by borrowing these two darker spots and combining them with the neck of Prayer Man (to create mouth and nose region in blue head) and with the mouth region of Prayer man's (yellow head) head to form the forehead in blue head. There is also a third head which appears to be a photographic or digital artefact. It is highlighted wiith a red contour in the lower left panel. Since the "blue" and "yellow" heads share parts of the objects (e.g., the "eyes" in blue head), the figure becomes bi-stable. This phenomenon is a well known visual illusion, and can be exemplified with Rubin's (1915) Vase-Face illusion. If you view the picture below for a while, you may note a vase alternating with two female faces. Thanks to Chris'es post, this story, in my view, comes to a resolution. The head which Brian and Duncan considered to be a genuine female head occurs in an area which appears to also show a digital artifact, although the artifact alone was not causing the perception of "Duncan's-Brian's" head. The perception of this face can be compared to pareidolia because here we attribute a sensible interpretation(face) to other shapes which in fact are not the shape we see. However, it may not be exactly pareidolia of the type as when completely random dots make us think that there was a face or a dog in the picture. It rather refers to a visual illusion due to its visual instability (bi-stability). All three factors (1. artifacts and low signal, 2. pareidolia, 3. visual illusion) contributed to the appearance of an object which looks like a human face.

Thanks, Chris, this is very useful. I did not have access to the picture you started with.

Dear Brian: I would like to apologise for my unfair and completely inappropriate reference to your health, and am glad that you carry on the discussion in spite of this insult. I will delete the rest of my criticism if I see that you are willing to discuss the matters in a technical and objective way, for now I remain cautious. Your last post gives me some hope that a reasonable discussion is possible, and therefore, I resume. I would prefer if you call me Andrej instead Mr Stancak. We fight fiercely on this forum, however, it is still a friendly bunch of people here. I wonder if you would help me to locate the source image from which the woman face/figure has been obtained. The picture which you refer as the source image and actually the ultimate result is not the original Wiegman's frame (still, photograph). The reason for me wanting to see the large, untouched still is that I want to go the way you describe and reach or not the same result as Chris Davidson or Duncan have reported. I also have concerns about the space above the figure's head which would allow to say if the picture is a real and complete head or only some wishful selection. I realise that you may not be that skilled in computer graphics which is fully ok, and therefore, just please let me know if one of the following two frames would be the one showing the figure of your interest: Could it be this frame? Or would it rather be this frame? If neither of these two pictures would be the ones which yielded the picture you promote, would you please either post or link the correct frame. We avoid the GIFs frames as they already have been extensively processed. The reason for asking for this frame is that extensive processing or selective cropping may sometimes produce unexpected results, mostly various shapes. For instance, a simple step such as resizing can be quite aggressive and change the contours of objects. If a resampled image is then subject to brightness/contrast or other operation, it may suddenly start to show weird things. I am not saying that this happend in the case of the photograph in question, however, it is necessary to see the original picture without any lines crossing the face and without a corona highlighting the figure. The reason for posting two dark frames in my previous post was that these were unprocessed images, therefore, they contained original information not altered by my processing. These images need to be viewed for few minutes in a dark room to appreciate what the picture tells you. I will come to the possibility of pareidolia later after it will be clear how the picture you are interested in was produced.

Brian: [Removed} It is obvious that you know that Duncan's picture contains a wishful suppression of the other head just above the one you claim, and you are not even ashamed. You know that no expert has ever confirmed or will confirm anything you wrote about this picture. You ignore any request to present original data. You do not understand that other researchers have full right to ask for the original picture you or your collaborators used. You place yourself as the one who decides what evidence is the best, however, you have not demonstrated your expertise in anything. You do not understand that the purpose of the forum is to mutually check results else it is very easy to commit a mistake. You only refer to the work of other people who themselves do not defend the case because they know they would come short. You yourself have not produced a single result, you only criticise the work of other researchers. You have no intention to collaborate. You think that only your view is correct, but this best view cannot be verified. It therefore can be discussed ad nauseam without any resolution. Who do you think will play this game with you? You had your chance but you have forfeited. I hope that the administrator this time not only delete your messages but your entire profile. Until then I am withdrawing from posting on EF as I would feel embarrassed to be in your company.

Brian: I have presented two darker images and one bright image, so you cannot say that you do not see it. You see the content of the bright picture well. Please note one extra face located below the top margin in the left corner of the last picture in my previous post. This is a problem, isn't it: there are faces at improbable locations in the noisy parts of the old picture. Naturally, Duncan has cut off anything above your female head - the true Prayer Man and also the one illusory face shown in my previous post. You write "Photo experts could examine both Davidson's Photoshop methodology and the resulting image and confirm whether or not the face derived from a clean photo process." Brian, please, bring on the experts. You write they would confirm all what you claim, however, no one has yet. We want to see the experts's statements. We also want to see the whole process of your (Duncan's) analysis: what generic Wiegman's picture you took (a link), what part of the doorway you cut, which tools and in which order and intensity have you used. One of the basic principles of any research work is the reproducibility: we need to able to replicate the path Duncan or whoever went to produce exactly this image. If not, the final product can be an error or even worse, a fabrication. Therefore, I ask you again to provide the details allowing us to evaluate what methods were used. "Once the best photo experts got hold of the Wiegman Film and applied the best modern technology to it they would confirm everything I've written and end the issue". Ok, Brian, when will it be? Why haven't you already asked the best photo experts to analyse the picture (but which picture - we still do not know what was the generic picture). "Nowhere in Mr Stancak's reply is there any attempt to explain why Davidson's Photoshop technique wasn't valid or why the more than obvious image of a woman's face wasn't the clean result of that valid process." Brian, please post or link the original Wiegman's frame from which your alleged female has been produced, and please give us details about the methods. If you give us these details, I will be able to comment on the validity of Duncan's picture. We need to know in particular what was the original Wiegman's still (there are multiple version of it), what resolution it had and whether it was resized and using which algorithm, what section of the doorway has been cut and why, in particular why the space above the alleged head was not analysed, what tools (brightness: what intensity, contrast: what ratio, any other tool?) "There's a clearly visible pair of woman's style eyeglass rims on Prayer Woman's visible glasses. This will also be confirmed by expert photo analysts. (Also ignored)" Ok, Brian: the eyeglass rims are only your subjective impressions, aren't they?. Why then you propose it as a fact? When will it be confirmed by expert photo analysts? I am pretty sure that a photographic experts would try to politely explain that this dark area of the doorway cannot show you details you claim to see (eyeglasses, fingers in your other post). Even if you "see" them, other people would not see them like you do - you therefore assume they are either 1) dumb, 2) ill minded towards your theory, 3) or both. Well, this type of reasoning belongs to the Louisiana State Mental Hospital, Jackson, not to the EF.

The face which Brian and Duncan have seen in one of the GIF images is, in my opinion, a pareidolia – the game of our mind which connects uncertain, noisy elements of visual field into a face. As I mentioned in my previous post about the experiment by Glasgow scientists, two circles with a dash in between is enough for people to falsely claim that there was a face in a cloud of noisy dots. To evaluate the GIF in which alleged female face is present, one needs to evaluate how much information is present in the original image. If the information is low, the risk of pareidolia is high as the elements in the picture were most likely random assemblies of pixels. Therefore, I requested in several posts that the original large frame from which any analysis has been made would be provided. The best version of Wiegman frame 133 which I was able to locate is the one below. The picture was downloaded from the excellent ROKC repository of photographs. The picture is bright enough as it stands to be analysed without any further processing. http://memberfiles.freewebs.com/15/59/98545915/photos/undefined/WiegmanTrulyGrp-VERYCLEAR-FromDragooToKhakiMen-Lovelady&PMClearlySeenOnSteps.jpg I have cut the part of the doorway containing Prayer Man without adding any processing. The picture, in my view, shows the male head and also a relatively bright neck and part of the chest. There is a dark spot next to Prayer Man’s right side of his neck, which relates to the dark background. The left side of the neck also shows a slightly darker area (which can be made even darker by adding brightness/contrast). Below these two darker spots next to the left and right side of the neck, there are slightly brighter regions corresponding to Prayer Man’s neck and/or chest (white T-shirt). Now, this picture is bistable. If you look at it for some time, you either see the Prayer Man’s head, or you rather see another head in Prayer Man's neck area. This illusory head is created by two darker spots next to Prayer Man’s neck, the border of the white T-shirt (or skin of the chest) and Prayer Man’s chin standing for the forehead of this illusion head. There is also a problem of image quality which contributes to the pareidolic capacity of this picture. Although the original Wiegman's still looks great, once we start to analyse it on pixel level, it becomes clear that it has been created in a digital process which involves data compression, something what Chris Newton has emphasised recently. The digital artifacts often manifest as larger squares of pixels which are displaced ususally by one row of pixels from neighboring squares of pixels. It is likely that that this displacement of pixel assemblies also occurred in the area of Prayer Man’ face. Below is a corrected image in which the whole square of pixels has been moved one row of pixels to the right. The continuity of the lines in Prayer Man’s head becomes natural and obvious. With a bit of reasoning we can discard the lower face as a real human face. If the lower face would be the true one, where would the upper head come from? In contrast, if we accept the top head as the true one, the lower head can be explained as an illusion or pareidolia. I am adding one more, processed, picture for those who would not be able to view the above two pictures in a dark room (there is not much seen if ambient light is strong). I have added the contrast and the light. The power of pareidolia can be appreciated if you view the upper left corner of this image - there is one more head looking to the right.

Brian: if you know which Wiegman's frame it is which shows the female head, why don't you show us how it is possible to identify a female face in it. You comment on the work of other people but you yourself fail to demonstrate anything. Please, identify the original picture which you think yielded the female face, and show all intermediate steps, and the result. If not, this silly game of yours will continue on and on. We were nice to you, however, this is about the end of it. Well, we can stop responding to your posts, however, in that case you would be allowed to effectively steal and destroy this thread. If you fail to provide any photographic evidence to support your claims in your next post, I will contact the Administrator to consult possible solutions. I cannot see that the Administrator would see any advantage in serious researchers leaving the EF.

Thanks, Chris, for reminding us the unfortunate issue of using youtube videos for photographic analysis. The Wiegman's still I used is not from a video though. I only used video to find out what frame number it was. This still is of much better quality than a youtube video of Robert Groden's copy of Wiegman film.

Andrej, I don't think that's a "double forehead." I think Oswald Prayer Man has raised his head up and we also see his white T-shirt under his darker-colored outer shirt. -- Tommy Thomas: the signal in this particular area does not warrant any statement about whether it was a female or other head, or whether it was a T-shirt combined with outer shirt. Please have a look on the original Wiegman's frame. If you struggle to spot a human figure there, there is no chance to identify any details. It is likely that it was the brightness of the neck or T-shirt fusing with the head, however, this is already our speculation.

I was able to identify the Wiegman's film frame which Chris Davidson has used in his analysis. It is frame 133 in the series of frames in Robert Groden's copy. I was able to locate it on internet and post is here. Please note that the part of doorway is in complete darkness. It is dark because there is almost no signal (information) there. We only see the bright spot suggesting that someone stood there. If the signal is that poor, any statement about the sharpness of any objects in this area of picture has no merit. One cannot have a sharp image of a face if neither the head or the body can be seen. Wiegman's film, Frame 133 I have cut the region which Chris analysed in detail (below). The left panel shows the original picture. The middle panel is the same picture with only brightness added. This at least allowed to indicate the top of this person's head, which is highlighted by horizontal blue lines interspersed between pictures. The right panel is the one which should be the closest to Chris'es picture - both brightness and the contrast have been added. While the "Oswaldian" forehead is visible, the rest of head and the neck create another head. However, this is just an artefact caused by forcing the image to show at least something. There has been a clever experiment performed by experimental psychologists in Glasgow. They generated random arrays of dots and asked their participants to press a key once they think there was a human face buried in the cloud of dots. They presented hundreds of such pictures, and then averaged the small percentage of pictures which people claimed to contain a human face (there never was any face in any of the pictures - dots were all random). The averaged image surprisingly showed two small circles as if eyes and a small dash line between and slightly below the eyes as if it would be the nose. When people believed that there was a human face in the cloud of random dots, their fusiform gyrus in temporo-occipital cortex (this is where human faces are interpreted in the brain) was activated. Human face is a powerful pareidolia object, and it is not surprising - from infancy we are primed and keen to see human faces. Thus, it is not that difficult to view a human face even if the visual field does not contain any face. Taken together, this image and its processed products cannot prove the identity of Prayer Man. The part corresponding to head and neck contained as if two heads, the lower of the two not having any neck. We may agree that: 1) there was someone standing in that part of the doorway, 2) the person held a bright object in his right hand, 3) we may draw a line defining the top of this person's head, 4) we can assume that the arms are in a similar "prayer" gesture as we see in Darnell. 5) there is a continuity between the person we see in Wiegman's and Darnell's films. Thus, identity information derived from Darnell's stills will apply to Wiegman's film. Due to the noise and poor signal in Wiegman's still, this inference does not hold vice versa.

Brian: it is not my obligation to provide evidence on your behalf. You may wish to contact the Author and ask him kindly to re-post his results. I am willing to look at any evidence once you show any.

Brian: we need to see your evidence to be able to comment. Please provide an article, link, or a post number describing the "evidence" so that we can have a look again if you wish so. I would be grateful if you could keep your messages less personal else what will hapen is that people will start ignoring you not because of their alleged inability to discuss specific points but simply because they do not like your too personal style.

Brian: would you please indicate Chris'es post in which in your view he proved that Prayer Man was actually a woman. I am familiar with this thread but in none of the posts did Chris prove anything, and as I know the style of his work and posting, he would not even pretend doing so. Chris might have had an opinion, as we all have.

Brian: Maybe I need to point to the problem of using Wiegman's film in clarification of Prayer Man's identity more clearly. The top panel shows a very nice frame of Wiegman's film, downloaded from ROKC picture repository (http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/photos/photo?photoid=199187640). One would not even think that there is Prayer Man in that very dark corner. This part of the doorway was covered by a shadow and the Wiegman's camera and film produced too much contrast and, together with the distance of shooting, did not yield enough signal there. The lower panel shows the effect of Fill light and clarity tool (Corel Painshop Pro). Indeed, adding light has helped to identify a human figure and his gesture and a light object about at the level of the mouth, however, this is about all what we can say about this figure. Once this noisy image is processed further (magnifying, resampling etc.), it starts to create chunks which have no good interprepation. There is simply not enough information there. If you would like to make the case for a female using Wiegman's film, would you please provide the original Wiegman's frame from which results have been produced, and demonstrate every processing step.

Brian: Unfortunately, the signal in the dark corner of the doorway in Wiegman's film is just too poor for an unequivocal indentification of the person which others and I believe is a man. The figure's head appears to be split into two causing it to appear too tall in some frames. Unless there is a better copy of Wiegman's film we may not be able to identify beyond any doubts the person's identity solely from Wiegman's film. I have contacted the Sixth Floor Museum in January 2015, and they were kind enough to communicate the recommendation of the late Gary Mack that Oliver Stone has used a copy of Wiegman which was in the film archive of UCLA, LA (a 35 mm copy). "Four days in November" film was their next recommendation. All other sources appear to rely on the original NBC footage from 11/22/63. I have contacted NBC right away after the email exchange with SFM, however, they never replied to my query. This leaves Darnell's film as a much better candidate for any feature analysis and maybe identification. The problem is well known as a face recognition problem, and it has been intensively studied over past years. Thanks to the advance of face recognition algorithms, we can have electronic passports etc. However, the algorithms suffer if the face image is noisy, does not show enough of facial features, and - importantly - the face cannot be viewed from a direct front view. I have posted few ideas how to deal with this problem in one of my previous posts in this thread. I have analysed the height of Prayer Man in detail, also in this thread. However, even without a 3D reconstruction and just by applying some logical thinking one can get that Prayer Man in Darnel's film cannot be someone too small. The top of Prayer Man's head aligns with the neck/shoulder line of Wesley Buell Frazier and since the height of human head is 9''.4 on average, the height of Prayer Man, if we assume he was standing on the top landing, would be only between 5'1'' and 5'3'' (Frazier's body height was 6'). However, a small person has also shorter arms and narrower shoulders which causes impossibility to align his/her arms and body exactly in Prayer Man's style - the arms of that small person would be too short. Naturally, one can distort the arms of a small person to somehow fit Prayer Man's arms, howoever, the distance between the head (e.g., chin) and the arms would then be too short and unlike we see in Prayer Man. Mr. Murphy's research showed logical problems in the testimonies of a number of witnesses pointing to fabrication of second floor encounter. Prayer Man's figure in Darnell would miss the point without this logical analysis of the second floor encounter. Second floor encounter is currently discussed by experts in another thread in this forum in case you would be interested.