Prayer Man is a Man

[John Butler]

On 11/29/2021 at 3:56 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

I would not subscribe to the possibility that the lady depicted in Denis's photograph could be Prayer Man. 

The woman the arrow is pointing to looks a great deal more like the photo rather than PM.  The notion that PM is a woman, IMO, is an idea to disprove that Oswald is Prayer Man and was there on the steps as Officer Baker and Truly go past the landing and door.

When you continue looking at frames in this section of the film you will see a police officer moving in the direction of the doorway.  It could be Officer Baker.  His alleged timing is about right.   He is the only police officer credited to be in that particular area.  Some think this officer bypasses the doorway.  But, there is no direct film scene showing this or the officer mounting the steps to the doorway.  Since no other police officer is shown in that area in this timed sequence in the film then it is more than likely Baker.

This accounts for one Oswald in this film in the door way, and in the John Martin film on Elm Street below the trees.  The second Oswald at the TSBD distorts reality in providing alternate information of Oswald's location.   This second Oswald may have been the original Lee Harvey Oswald.  There is no doubt of there being two Oswalds with different stories and locations during and after the assassination.  Others may say this is not so.  But, the evidence points to there being two Oswalds at the TSBD. 

This is why the double man spy is used.  While one is doing something the other can be in the area doing something else.  The use of both with different information muddies the picture and is the purpose of spreading disinformation. This is a game the two had been playing since they were young boys.

Prayer Man in the doorway provides an alibi for the Oswald in the TSBD upper floors.  

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by John Butler

[Jake Hammond]

Just zoomed in a bit and I'm now more convinced than ever that the image is not Oswald, or any man. The Male pattern baldness ( receding ) hairline is merely an illusion cause by the movement of the head and therefore blur. You can see that the receding section of hair extends right to the back of the head and gradually fades out but at the front, the forehead section, it does have a defined 'white' shape. As seen in the image of the lady with the camera. You can see this fade on the ear in exactly the same proportions and amount. You also must see the parting of the hair. A hair pin has been used to keep a parting on our left side which alines with the lighter are of ' balding running right to the back of the head this image of PP. These two factors combined, or either one TBH could account for the appearance of a receding hairline. 

 In addition please acknowledge that the lady is clearly wearing two layers of clothing on her arms and the PP image also shows clearly two layers of clothing. The blow up also shows clearly the 'bangles', although I think that this may be one large long bangle as was a fashion at the time. 

  

Edited December 1, 2021 by Jake Hammond

[Andrej Stancak]

Jake:

I am afraid you see things you want to see only to somehow get the woman to be Prayer Man. While some of Danell film frames are heavily affected with camera motion blur, this frame is surprisingly steady in this aspect. The figure of Prayer Man is blurred though and many detaild we would like to verify are simply not availlable. However, the relatively large spots on Prayer Man's figure can be seen and interpreted.

If you think that the male type II baldness seen on Prayer Man is actually only an artefact resulting from head motion, maybe you would be able to also explain somehow the large light triangular spot below Prayer Man's neck, basically in the middle of upper chest. Would you think it could be due to this person wearing a white T-shirt underneath his shirt and have the upper buttons on his shirt open? Why does the woman with the camera not show such white triangle? Please let me know if you want me to draw the light-shaded area on Prayer Man's upper chest in case you would not know what I am pointing to.

The average height of females in the USA in 1963 for population aged about 40 was 5' 2 1/2'', and the standard deviation was 1''. Thus, practically all females (99%) would fit to +- 3'' relative to this mean. However, Prayer Man was 5' 9 3/4''. Furthermore, as he stood with his right foot on the step below the top landing, his left leg was bent in the joint knee. Could this be the way how this lady appeared as Prayer Man?  

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Andrej Stancak

[Jake Hammond]

Light section at top of shirt ? Maybe the lady is wearing a white T shirt or blouse ? Pretty straight forward . Or maybe it’s her chest and the contrast shows it as white ( like the face) . 
Height - I’m sorry , I’ve read your analysis but pointing out height down to a quarter of an inch from that quality photo and a slouching position is just not possible. I saw a tv show recently on forensic mistakes that lead to convictions and a mans height had been mistaken by almost a foot , by professionals, using methods very similar to yours and with a much better image and known parameters. If you can show me an image of the receding hair with out the blur behind it in a uniform and consistent fade, one that matches the ear fade perfectly ( remember that the bit between the ear and temple is hair and so will show no fade so essentially what we’re seeing the a fade/ blur of the whole head as it turns) I will happily change my opinion . I remain open minded and look forward to more analysis. 

[Andrej Stancak]

28 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Light section at top of shirt ? Maybe the lady is wearing a white T shirt or blouse ? Pretty straight forward . Or maybe it’s her chest and the contrast shows it as white ( like the face) . 
Height - I’m sorry , I’ve read your analysis but pointing out height down to a quarter of an inch from that quality photo and a slouching position is just not possible. I saw a tv show recently on forensic mistakes that lead to convictions and a mans height had been mistaken by almost a foot , by professionals, using methods very similar to yours and with a much better image and known parameters. If you can show me an image of the receding hair with out the blur behind it in a uniform and consistent fade, one that matches the ear fade perfectly ( remember that the bit between the ear and temple is hair and so will show no fade so essentially what we’re seeing the a fade/ blur of the whole head as it turns) I will happily change my opinion . I remain open minded and look forward to more analysis. 

Jake:

your candidate lady does not show any triangular shape on the upper chest as Prayer Man does. Therefore, this lady cannot be Prayer Man. It is that simple. That lady's underware is irrelevant as her blouse is continuous and buttoned high up at the neck - unlike in Prayer Man.

As per my height analysis, of course I am giving data from my analysis as accurately as I am reading them in Sketchup, however, there is also a limit to the accuracy of my height estimates. The top of Prayer Man's head can be anywhere between 5' 2'' and 5' 3'' relative to the floor plane of the top landing.

If you do not trust my height analysis, you can always subtract the height of a head of a man 6' 1/2'' tall (Frazier) which dimension is between 9.7'' and 10'' because that plane aligns with the lower aspect of Frazier's chin or shoulders in Darnell.

Please check the height of males and female heads for different body heights here. The relevant head dimension is "14":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_head

If you subtract  10'' from 6' 1/2', you end up with a height of 5' 2 1/2'', and slightly more if you subtract 9' 7'' but still very close to 5 '2 1/2''. This will tell you that the top of Prayer Man's head is at the height of around 5' 2 1/2'' and it matches my height estimate of 5' 2 1/2'' accurately. 

And if you want to have another independent verification of my heigh estimate, you can use the following online tool to compare the level of a person 5' 2 1/2'' relative to a person 6' 1/2'' :

https://www.mrinitialman.com/OddsEnds/Sizes/compsizes.xhtml  

Thus, there are three independent ways how to check the height of the plane crossing Prayer Man's top of the head relative to the plane of the top landing. All estimates point to the height around 5' 2 1/2'', very tightly around this value. Maybe now, after seeing the independent height estimates, you can trust my height estimates obtained from a 3D model a bit more.

The thing is, however, that Prayer Man could not be a person 5'2'' standing on the top landing because: 1) his figure would not match Prayer Man's figure in Darnell. For instance, Prayer Man's right elbow joint would be too far from the brick colum that can be seen on the western wall. 2) his body proportions, being a short person, would not match that of Prayer Man. Notably, his shoulders and arms would be about two inches too high relative to what we see in Prayer Man in Darnell. Therefore, there is only one solution of Prayer Man body height and it is very close to 5' 9 1/2'' with Prayer Man standing effectively on the step below the top landing. I can post a picture of a fit of a person 5' 4'' in Darnell if you would like to check a glaring mismatch once the location and the body height of the candidate person deviates from my suggested location and body height.

I hope this helps to clear your doubts about my height estimates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jake Hammond]

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Jake:

your candidate lady does not show any triangular shape on the upper chest as Prayer Man does. Therefore, this lady cannot be Prayer Man. It is that simple. That lady's underware is irrelevant as her blouse is continuous and buttoned high up at the neck - unlike in Prayer Man.

As per my height analysis, of course I am giving data from my analysis as accurately as I am reading them in Sketchup, however, there is also a limit to the accuracy of my height estimates. The top of Prayer Man's head can be anywhere between 5' 2'' and 5' 3'' relative to the floor plane of the top landing.

If you do not trust my height analysis, you can always subtract the height of a head of a man 6' 1/2'' tall (Frazier) which dimension is between 9.7'' and 10'' because that plane aligns with the lower aspect of Frazier's chin or shoulders in Darnell.

Please check the height of males and female heads for different body heights here. The relevant head dimension is "14":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_head

If you subtract  10'' from 6' 1/2', you end up with a height of 5' 2 1/2'', and slightly more if you subtract 9' 7'' but still very close to 5 '2 1/2''. This will tell you that the top of Prayer Man's head is at the height of around 5' 2 1/2'' and it matches my height estimate of 5' 2 1/2'' accurately. 

And if you want to have another independent verification of my heigh estimate, you can use the following online tool to compare the level of a person 5' 2 1/2'' relative to a person 6' 1/2'' :

https://www.mrinitialman.com/OddsEnds/Sizes/compsizes.xhtml  

Thus, there are three independent ways how to check the height of the plane crossing Prayer Man's top of the head relative to the plane of the top landing. All estimates point to the height around 5' 2 1/2'', very tightly around this value. Maybe now, after seeing the independent height estimates, you can trust my height estimates obtained from a 3D model a bit more.

The thing is, however, that Prayer Man could not be a person 5'2'' standing on the top landing because: 1) his figure would not match Prayer Man's figure in Darnell. For instance, Prayer Man's right elbow joint would be too far from the brick colum that can be seen on the western wall. 2) his body proportions, being a short person, would not match that of Prayer Man. Notably, his shoulders and arms would be about two inches too high relative to what we see in Prayer Man in Darnell. Therefore, there is only one solution of Prayer Man body height and it is very close to 5' 9 1/2'' with Prayer Man standing effectively on the step below the top landing. I can post a picture of a fit of a person 5' 4'' in Darnell if you would like to check a glaring mismatch once the location and the body height of the candidate person deviates from my suggested location and body height.

I hope this helps to clear your doubts about my height estimates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Andrej, I'd like to counter if I may with a few points of logic but also evidence. 

 1. The image attached is from your own blog. It clearly shows that the neck area is skin coloured and not white and a large area, it actually shows that there is no T-shirt there. There is no white ring where is transitions to the darker skin colour either. Anything light in the Darnell still is shown as white yet the neck area is mid grey. That is not a white T-shirt clearly. To reinforce ... that's your own cleaned up image. 

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjSzquyY8BpomSlmnlIRwyfAKRE5YS4_ZvI0cd-AI763Rb4eU9gGyanzzrevkjDRQJrsxaklX9q4nrIfrpwdWync8cLXMZ3sDfBfLKrL_YBnW93KJ73jD5AlfYEAlm4eSqQRVqBDWnIkFnQwhvNaZmMq-auRzNLy40lMXm7DOjSBy8InkcWc4kHIDxVIg=s526 

 2. In your height analysis here and on the blog you don't factor in slouch at all. Clearly the person in the corner is slouching with a lowered head. Frazier is stood bolt upright. Direct comparison of the two is impossible.  If I've missed something here please do say, I tried to skim read through as much as I could. 

3. Your point about it not being the woman in the image because women can't undo a top button or two on a shirt during the course of a day simply wouldn't stand up in any court. Buttons are made to be fastened and unfastened, that's literally what they are designed for. In a slouch position it would only take the top two buttons to be undone for the neck to gape like that. 

Logical points ... 

 1 - If the image can't be PP because women can't wear a blouse under a shirt and have a button undone and that proves its a man... then what about the obvious long black hair ? Surely that would disprove it being a man and is much more solid as it is literally there for everyone to see ( please see my above blow up).  

 2 - NOBODY said they saw Oswald there. I can't stress this enough. A minimum of 50 people had a clear and open view of PP, many moving toward the TSBD at the time and would have been gone before they could have been stopped by the SS or DPD. Not a single person claims LHO was there.  But furthermore Frazier doesn't recall who that was so it obviously wasn't anyone he knew since he accurately recalls the movements of the people he knew. Suggesting that it wasn't someone who worked at the building. 

 3 - Does n't the fact that this person plays no part in the assassination otherwise and has no importance in any other research suggest that it isn't Oswald ? Normally when you look into links and possible motives things start to cross reference or other peoples testimonies start to make sense. Not so with PP.PP was clearly someone not attached to Dealey Plaza or the assassination. Its been 58 years and had a LOT of time and effort thrown at it, and no one has linked that person to anything. 

I do love in depth analysis on stuff and have started a couple thread myself with practical analysis to try to prove points but I can't get on board with this. 

 I don't think I really have much more to add beyond the hair, large bracelets, under garments, lack of witnesses, camera, lack of white T-shirt and unknown height so I'll leave it here as I really should be doing more work !  If you do have an image clearly showing a white T-shirt or find a witness I'll happily change my tune so I'll keep an eye on the thread. I appreciate the work and hope you can appreciate my counter points as truth seeking and not criticism. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Jake Hammond

[Andrej Stancak]

Jake:

Thanks for your comments to my points. If you read my post carefully, I did not claim that the white area below Prayer Man's neck and just above his crossed arms was a T-shirt.

I wrote: "Would you think it could be due to this person wearing a white T-shirt underneath his shirt and have the upper buttons on his shirt open? Why does the woman with the camera not show such white triangle? Please let me know if you want me to draw the light-shaded area on Prayer Man's upper chest in case you would not know what I am pointing to."

If you think that it was not a T-shirt causing the light-coloured spot of interest, I would not argue as there is hardly a way of discerning a T-shirt from the skin tone in a blurred image in which the transition between two light shades fades away. We agree on that.

Thanks for commenting on my views. It certainly helped me to revise the stuff that has been discussed earlier on this Forum. I look forward to reading your work.

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Andrej Stancak

[Jake Hammond]

Thanks Andrej, yes in your image there I think it shows that there isn't a white T-shirt visible, the colour contrasts are clearer on your blog. I recently opened a thread on the Rambler on Elm which hasn't got much traction, perhaps because I am still re-acquainting myself with the image uploads and storage so they aren't all embedded. Or its just a boring subject ! I like the detail though ! I only opened one other thread a couple of years ago on the shirt bunching of JFK and unfortunately came up against some serious opposition from Cliff ( not sure he's still around) who's specialty subject that seemed to be. I was convinced that the single bullet hit the two men then and didn't make any friends .... I'm open to there being two shots from behind hitting them closely together now but still favour one bullet given cleaned up Z-Film footage showing a simultaneous reaction. Anyway take a look at Rambler, there's not much to it, just me confirming that the '12.40' shot is almost certainly THE Rambler using some car analysis, it all helps though. 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Jake Hammond

[Greg Doudna]

Update on Darnell film access issue:

Below are cut-and-pasted from comments posted on a ROKC (ReOpen Kennedy Case) site discussion: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t587p650-prayer-man 

My comment: according to the comments below NBC already right now is making available access to copies of the Darnell film because they have done so, but will not allow access to the original for physical artifact preservation reasons. That is a defensible position familiar in the museum world. Asking for "public access" to the original of the Darnell film therefore is a nonstarter, should not be the issue. Rather, qualified scientists or film persons with expertise and credentials asking for access, for scientific reasons, outlining exactly what is wanted to do, the scientific justification (the research question and how that question will be answered), what will be done and will the methods be destructive or damage the artifact, maybe intended venue of publication (ideally a peer-reviewed science journal), and the realistic prospects of whether the studies and methods indicated will deliver meaningful results to the research question (the answer should be some form of "yes" here), etc.--that is how a request should be framed, coming from a scientist or film person with recognized expertise, or, even better, a well-regarded team of such (not Joe Q. Public). The more credentials and professional status signing to the request the better. Obviously the request should be directed toward a specific named individual senior in the hierarchy of the copyright owner capable of directing that a yes decision is to be done.    

From Roger Odisio:

• "In retrospect I think ownership of the Darnell film is pretty clear.  Storing the film at NBC headquarters in NY doesn't change the fact that Dallas station KXAS (formerly WBAP), an NBC affiliate, owns the film shot by its employee Jimmy Darnell. It is responsible under FCC rules for its use or lack thereof.  Not NBC. (. . .) NBC, on the other hand, is just a network of stations, that over the last 20 years has morphed into a small cog in a multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate known as NBC Universal.  That in turn was owned first by GE and now by Comcast and includes a myriad of domestic and international properties.   When you guys were rejected by NBC it was by a flunky who reports to a flunky who reports to a flunky, etc. in the conglomerate.  No surprise that is a blind alley."  

From Mick Purdy, an Australian who works in film and media:

• "Make no mistake NBC have intimated that they will not allow anyone to handle the original film - exercising their rights as the owners of the footage. The fear of damage to the historical film is given as a reason for this stance. They have at certain moments offered to supply mediocre sub optimal video copies of that film at a cost to the person requesting said film. When Stone needed archive footage for his Documentary or JFK the Movie he was supplied with transfers - Video tape copies of the original films. It is not an uncommon practice. So NBC will and have claimed that the original film is not to be handled - Period."

Mick Purdy again:

• "I would however remind you that transfer copies (Possibly 2nd or 3rd generation) of the original Darnell footage have been made available at a cost to a number of people. These copies are not of any value in trying to ID the unsub in the frame atop of the stairs. This notion that NBC are hiding the original footage will be disputed by the films owners since they offer transfer copies of the film upon request. As an aside the Darnell footage (transfer video tape copy) can be seen in the special edition (50th anniversary) of the directors cut of JFK the Movie in a supplementary documentary contained within. So the argument that the owners are hiding something becomes a moot point. That's where we need those who matter or have sway in higher places to adjudge the the original film is meaningful in some sort of legal sense as it possibly shows evidence contained within which would appear to exonerate the person who was charged with Kennedy's murder."

[Greg Doudna]

p.s. get Marina, the widow, to sign on to the request, saying she wants to know if that was Lee which would prove his innocence? That could carry some clout in the public eye. Supporters of the Warren Commission also should support the request, if there is a realistic prospect of getting an up-or-down answer to the question through the methods and expertise named, for that would put the issue to bed if the answer was negative.

Promise the contact person, the decisionmaker--the senior person to whom the request is addressed--coauthorship on the publication of the results. That works. Good luck.

[Paul Brancato]

I’m curious. I never enter into exchanges about prayer man or other photo details, because interpretation of photographs can be subjective, especially without the original archival footage. What I’m curious about is what the researchers and interested parties hope to gain. It would be great if Oswald could be absolutely positively identified as standing in front of the TSBD, but it still wouldn’t get us closer to who was doing the shooting, other than knowing for sure it wasn’t Oswald. So my question is - assume for a moment you’ve proved your case that Oswald was watching the motorcade from the TSBD steps. What’s next? Was someone in the sniper’s nest? Were there multiple shooters? Who was behind it? 58 years and counting….logistic evidence and photos and films are fine as far as they can go, but only a means to an end. 

[Stu Wexler]

While there is near unanimity on this forum that there was a conspiracy, if Prayer Man is Oswald it would effectively end the discussion for everyone else.

Photo people:  is it possible to do serious digital enhancement work on a once-removed version of Darnell? Or does it have to be the original. And can we get original access to Weigman?

[Micah Mileto]

-

Edited December 3, 2021 by Micah Mileto

[Jake Hammond]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I’m curious. I never enter into exchanges about prayer man or other photo details, because interpretation of photographs can be subjective, especially without the original archival footage. What I’m curious about is what the researchers and interested parties hope to gain. It would be great if Oswald could be absolutely positively identified as standing in front of the TSBD, but it still wouldn’t get us closer to who was doing the shooting, other than knowing for sure it wasn’t Oswald. So my question is - assume for a moment you’ve proved your case that Oswald was watching the motorcade from the TSBD steps. What’s next? Was someone in the sniper’s nest? Were there multiple shooters? Who was behind it? 58 years and counting….logistic evidence and photos and films are fine as far as they can go, but only a means to an end. 

This is my point on pursuing leads that don’t affect the case . Surely alarm bells should go off off your leads of enquiry wouldn’t change anything 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

I have a hard time believing Buell when he claims that he avoided political conversations with Oswald, answering "I don't know anything about that" when Oswald said "all politicians lie". Wasn't Buell arrested for being part of a leftist latino American group?

Micah I have looked in the past and failed to find any political statement from Frazier, let alone an arrest for leftist political activity. There is certainly nothing in Frazier's book like that. Surely you are confusing someone else with Wesley Frazier.