Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'prayerman'.
Bart Kamp is an author and researcher at Dealey Plaza UK and has provided critical research into the assassination of JFK. His work and sources come from looking through the archives of Malcom Blunt who is known in the assassination research community for his encyclopedic knowledge of the JFK records held at the National Archives II in College Park, MD. New evidence from these files leads to Prayer Man a figure on the steps of the T.S.B.D. that is rumored to be Oswald. This is one of the most important questions in the JFK case because it means Oswald couldn't have taken the shot on the sixth floor proving him innocent. Out Of The Blank #1178 - Bart Kamp
Since I've taken up against Richard's paper claiming buttons on Prayerman and no Lunchroom encounter I've been PM'd about how the "experts" will set us all straight... when and if the day ever comes when "experts" can scan the film's frame at ridiculous resolution and support of conflict with Richard's work... until that day we use the resources available... But before that we need to address some common sense about the physical realities of what's being talked about when someone claims they can make out 7 buttons on the coat of this person... While this frame grab is nice and clear, there are limitations to resolution caused by physics that cannot be disregarded... (NOTE: Normal film does not have this high a resolution which is usually about 75pixels/mm becomes 150pixels/mm and this assumes that the frame can be scanned at that resolution) 150 pixels x 150 pixels is 22,500 pixels per square millimeter. 1 frame of 8mm is 4.5 x 3.3 mm or 14.85 sq mm 22,500 x 14.85 = 334,490 pixels within the ENTIRE FRAME PM is but 3% of that frame.... 334,490 * .03 = 10,023 pixels = a 62.5" person with realistic 2" buttons. A single button then is 3.2% of the this entire area (It's actually much less since there is more info in that section than just the person) So a single button is 3.2% * 10,023 = 320 sq pixels... or almost 18 pixels in diameter. Even if they were 4" buttons taking up 6.4%; 640 sq pixels = 25.3 pixels in diameter Here is an enlargement of one of the "buttons" with single pixels as the scale.... These "buttons" are 40 pixels a side or 1600 pixels square.... These artifacts of the image - if buttons - are well over 4" in diameter, each. Will taking that frame and doing a 9600dpi scan change the amount of info? Better yet, instead of worrying about digitizing, take the frame and using a projector blow the thing up to wall size.... What is being argues is that within an area .26 x .26 mm which encompasses what is being put forth as a 5'2" woman... LARGE buttons are at most 2" across... each button is then 2"/62" = 3.2% of the size of the woman in that portion of the frame.... Not only are they not evenly spaced as buttons would be, I'd ask Richard et al to offer us a coat from the 60's with 4" diameter buttons as a normal person's head is about 9" tall. Are you starting to get an idea of how absurd it is to claim 1) that these two men are as close to each other as offered...1.5 feet? & 2) that Buttons are discernible given the amount of digital info - especially at 72dpi. Images below One more point in support of it being Oswald is the way he holds his arms and the drooping right shoulder... We notice this person leaving the arms in this position the entire time.... Just as a thought experiment - does it appear that if PM was to fall flat on his face from where he is, would he even reach Wesley, the tall man in the center? Or he is only 1.5 feet away as Richard concludes? I used a photo from Minsk taken by a tourist while Ozzie was there.... Again, not saying it is... but the hairline, ears, neck, the way the harms and hands are and the stance sure suggests it to me....
Here are a couple of templates I have set up to help myself try to get a handle on the extreme difference in perspective from two of the most debated photos. I was wanting comment from some of the more experienced photo analysts/researchers as to whether this is accurate. Hopefully some of your comments will help others like me to understand how someone we think should be in a photo, may not be, not because of editing/fakery, but because of the difference in the photographers position (POV).