Prayer Man is a Man

[Mathias Baumann]

14 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Your faith in an independent press and honest law enforcement in Dallas in 1963 doesn’t strike me as realistic.

Cliff,

some of the Dallas Police were certainly not "honest". I think Jack Ruby could not have succeeded in killing Oswald without the help of some of the officers.

But could the plotters really expect the police to ignore concrete evidence of Oswald's innocence, such as a photograph? I think that would imply that most of the police department were in cahoots with the conspirators. But if that was the case, why was Oswald shot in front of dozens of reporters? That was a pretty risky move, it fuelled suspicions of conspiracy. Why wasn't Oswald killed in the Texas theater, "trying to resist arrest"?

It is my opinion that the number of conspirators was fairly small. Big conspiracies tend to be exposed sooner or later. I do not believe that a huge number of police officers was involved.

[Mathias Baumann]

I wonder if artificial intelligence could be used to improve the quality of Prayer Man's image. Software that could be capable of this has recently been developed.

Quote

The PULSE (Photo Upsampling via Latent Space Exploration) system developed by Dr Rudin and her team creates images with 64-times the resolution than the original blurred picture.

 

The PULSE algorithm is able to achieve such high levels of resolution by reverse engineering the image from high resolution images that look similar to the low resolution image when down scaled.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/artificial-intelligence-camera-blurry-face-enhance-ai-a9566121.html

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

I wonder if artificial intelligence could be used to improve the quality of Prayer Man's image. Software that could be capable of this has recently been developed.

 

The solution is to use deconvolution to eliminate misfocus and motion blur. 

Blurring can be modeled mathematically, and so if you perform the inverse mathematical process on the blurry image, this will undo the blurring (with some limitations). This process is called deconvolution. Here is an example before/after image:

 

The deconvolution filter has to be designed for each specific situation. People who think they are improving an image with a Photoshop deblurring function are kidding themselves. Sure, the image may look sharper, but it's only because it has had sharper transitions added to it. Which means that the image quality has actually been made worse.

People like Duncan McRae and others who see a woman in a Prayer Man frame after performing some Photoshop filtering, are really just seeing shapes in the cloud.

(I specialized in digital signal processing for my masters degree. This is the type of work I did for the NSA in their reconnaissance systems. Though my focus was on one-dimensional signals)

 

[David G. Healy]

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The solution is to use deconvolution to eliminate misfocus and motion blur. 

Blurring can be modeled mathematically, and so if you perform the inverse mathematical process on the blurry image, this will undo the blurring (with some limitations). This process is called deconvolution. Here is an example before/after image:

 

The deconvolution filter has to be designed for each specific situation. People who think they are improving an image with a Photoshop deblurring function are kidding themselves. Sure, the image may look sharper, but it's only because it has had sharper transitions added to it. Which means that the image quality has actually been made worse.

People like Duncan McRae and others who see a woman in a Prayer Man frame after performing some Photoshop filtering, are really just seeing shapes in the cloud.

(I specialized in digital signal processing for my masters degree. This is the type of work I did for the NSA in their reconnaissance systems. Though my focus was on one-dimensional signals)

 

a question and comment: do you think they see what they want to see? What is a one-dimensional signal?

[Andrej Stancak]

10 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

I wonder if artificial intelligence could be used to improve the quality of Prayer Man's image. Software that could be capable of this has recently been developed.

 

So, Mathias, will you contact Cynthia Rudin regarding enhancing Prayer Man in Darnell? Will you implement their free Python code and run Prayer Man image as input? I can help you with identifying the still possibly having the best chance to reveal facial features if you decide to pursue this interesting line of research. 

[Mathias Baumann]

42 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

So, Mathias, will you contact Cynthia Rudin regarding enhancing Prayer Man in Darnell? Will you implement their free Python code and run Prayer Man image as input? I can help you with identifying the still possibly having the best chance to reveal facial features if you decide to pursue this interesting line of research. 

First I'll send her an e-mail and ask her if her software is the right tool for the job. Because after reading this

Quote

We have noticed a lot of concern that PULSE will be used to identify individuals whose faces have been blurred out. We want to emphasize that this is impossible - PULSE makes imaginary faces of people who do not exist, which should not be confused for real people. It will not help identify or reconstruct the original image.

on the PULSE website (http://pulse.cs.duke.edu/) I'm not so sure anymore, but I guess "blurred out" in this context means that a face has intentionally been made unrecognizable, which is not the case with Prayer Man.

Regarding the Python software: I know some VBA, but I guess that won't help me much with the implementation. However, I know someone who might be able to help, if he has the time.

Anyway, there's some in-depth documentation on the software, which can be found here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.03808.pdf

[Andrej Stancak]

Mathias:

I wish you good luck with the AI analysis and hope you will update us about any progress.

 

[Rob Clark]

On 8/21/2020 at 4:11 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Well, a big red flag went up in my mind when I learned that. Because 1) if he didn't know who Prayer Man was, and 2) he didn't know where Oswald was at that time, then how could he possibly know that Prayer Man wasn't Oswald? He couldn't! So obviously Frazier was l.y.ing. Either 1) he knew or thought that Prayer Man was Oswald but was hiding that fact, or 2) he knew where Oswald was and it wasn't where Prayer Man was located. Oswald had to have been elsewhere outside in order for Frazier to have known where he was. Either way, Frazier's statements indicate that Oswald was outside IMO.

I would say Frazier is lying about a lot of things pertaining to that days events. I believe he stated at the 2014 AARC conference that he could not identify the person. He may have said later that it wasn't Oswald, but I'm not sure. Marina has been shown the still, and she believes it WAS Lee. Another thing that strikes me odd is that after the shooting Frazier said he went to the basement and ate his lunch alone. He then disappears for hours to visit his step Dad. Sounds to me like he knew something was up, panicked...went to the basement to collect himself away from prying eyes and questioning mouths, then went to seek advice from someone he respected. He states in his 6th Floor Oral History that he was still on the stairs as he watched Oswald walk up Houston and turn left down Main...implying he left out the back door of the TSBD. If Oswald had a package that day, it was the rifle...it was 40 inches long and being a hunter and rifle owner, Frazier would have known exactly what it was. If Oswald didn't have anythng except his lunch, it wasn't in a  28 inch long package. Either way Frazier is lying. I also believe Frazier dropped him off at the building that day, due to multiple coworkers HSCA testimony, and also that he brought Oswald to work far more often than we are lead to believe.

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

I would say Frazier is lying about a lot of things pertaining to that days events. I believe he stated at the 2014 AARC conference that he could not identify the person. He may have said later that it wasn't Oswald, but I'm not sure. Marina has been shown the still, and she believes it WAS Lee. Another thing that strikes me odd is that after the shooting Frazier said he went to the basement and ate his lunch alone. He then disappears for hours to visit his step Dad. Sounds to me like he knew something was up, panicked...went to the basement to collect himself away from prying eyes and questioning mouths, then went to seek advice from someone he respected. He states in his 6th Floor Oral History that he was still on the stairs as he watched Oswald walk up Houston and turn left down Main...implying he left out the back door of the TSBD. If Oswald had a package that day, it was the rifle...it was 40 inches long and being a hunter and rifle owner, Frazier would have known exactly what it was. If Oswald didn't have anythng except his lunch, it wasn't in a  28 inch long package. Either way Frazier is lying. I also believe Frazier dropped him off at the building that day, due to multiple coworkers HSCA testimony, and also that he brought Oswald to work far more often than we are lead to believe.

 

It looks like we are of one mind regarding Frazier. Though I didn't know that he left the TSBD to visit his step dad. When did that happen? Before or after being taken to the police station to be interrogated?

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/23/2020 at 7:23 PM, David G. Healy said:

On 8/23/2020 at 6:36 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

People like Duncan McRae and others who see a woman in a Prayer Man frame after performing some Photoshop filtering, are really just seeing shapes in the cloud.

Expand  

a question and comment: do you think they see what they want to see?

 

I would have to know Duncan McRae to make judgment on him. Chris Davidson is being fooled by what appears to be a lovely woman's face. I happen to agree with him that -- after his filtering of the image -- it appears there is a lovely woman’s face in it. But I know intellectually that we are both seeing a "shape in the clouds." You can't gain true image details through the use of generic Photoshop filters. As I said, you need to use custom filters.
At least that is the case for anti-blurring. If, on the other hand, you have a grainy image, a general low-pass filter can be used to eliminate some of that noise.
Now, there are some who see a woman even without the use of filters. I have no idea how they see a woman because PM looks obviously like a man to me. I suppose it could be that they want to see a woman because they are trying to figure out where a missing woman is, like Sarah Stanton. (I figure she must be standing behind someone. In fact, Andrej Stancak has located what appears to be part of a head just behind Frazier's head.)
 

 

On 8/23/2020 at 7:23 PM, David G. Healy said:

What is a one-dimensional signal?

 

In digital signal processing, an image is treated as a two-dimensional signal after it has been digitized (converted to a string of numbers or digits). A digitized sound or radio wave are treated as one-dimensional signals.

 

[Rob Clark]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It looks like we are of one mind regarding Frazier. Though I didn't know that he left the TSBD to visit his step dad. When did that happen? Before or after being taken to the police station to be interrogated?

 

Right after the assassination...they were looking for him, he wasn't at his house in Irving. Cops were told by his sister that he was visiting his stepdad in the hospital. They checked Parkland first, finally found him at the Irving Medical Center around 4 pm and was then taken to the police station for the first time that day.He was questioned briefly and turned loose. Once Oswald denied the curtain rod story, they brought him back and started leaning on him hard and giving him a lie detector test.

[Mathias Baumann]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I would have to know Duncan McRae to make judgment on him. Chris Davidson is being fooled by what appears to be a lovely woman's face. I happen to agree with him that -- after his filtering of the image -- it appears there is a lovely woman’s face in it. But I know intellectually that we are both seeing a "shape in the clouds." You can't gain true image details through the use of generic Photoshop filters. As I said, you need to use custom filters.
At least that is the case for anti-blurring. If, on the other hand, you have a grainy image, a general low-pass filter can be used to eliminate some of that noise.
Now, there are some who see a woman even without the use of filters. I have no idea how they see a woman because PM looks obviously like a man to me. I suppose it could be that they want to see a woman because they are trying to figure out where a missing woman is, like Sarah Stanton. (I figure she must be standing behind someone. In fact, Andrej Stancak has located what appears to be part of a head just behind Frazier's head.)
 

 

 

In digital signal processing, an image is treated as a two-dimensional signal after it has been digitized (converted to a string of numbers or digits). A digitized sound or radio wave are treated as one-dimensional signals.

 

Sandy,

it is known that the digitization of photos leaves all kinds of unwanted artificial artefacts. That is precisely why I'm highly skeptical of all attempt to identify certain people or objects without access to the original material, because the observer cannot distinguish between what is real and what is artificial.

Anyway, I've just written an e-mail to Dr Rudin and asked her if she thinks that her software could be helpful in improving the face of an unknown person. (I didn't mention the Kennedy assassination.) I don't think it can, but I'll let you all know when/if I hear back from her.

[Mathias Baumann]

So I just had an e-mail exchange with Dr Rudin. As I suspected her software is not suitable for identifying Prayer Man. In fact, she wrote that

Quote

one thing that PULSE showed is that there are many different plausible faces that correspond to the same low res image - which essentially means that correct identification from a low res image is generally impossible.

I guess that means we'll never know who Prayer Man is. There's just not enough information in the picture.

[Chris Davidson]

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I would have to know Duncan McRae to make judgment on him. Chris Davidson is being fooled by what appears to be a lovely woman's face. I happen to agree with him that -- after his filtering of the image -- it appears there is a lovely woman’s face in it.

 

I wasn’t fooled at all. That is your mis-characterization of what I said after I ran the “shadow contrast and tonal curve” filters and stated “It looks like a woman to me.”

I did not, nor have I ever declared it was a woman. Big difference.

There were two frames in which the filter was applied one was more blurry than the other.
The more blurred frame(after applying the filter) was the one in which I made the comment about looking like a woman.
The other frame (also with the filter applied) was the one that Duncan enlarged, which is the one you are referring to and I have never said that frame looked like a woman regardless of whether they depicted the same person.

This is the same crap I went through with others and previously had to correct them.

You agreed with me that it looked like a woman’s face because the Darnell frames had not yet been discovered by Robin Unger and there was nothing else to compare the Wiegman frames to as they were the best quality frames available at the time.

If anybody wants confirmation to what I have stated above ask John Iacoletti (I believe he is still a forum member here) as we went through the same BS on Duncan’s forum. John did a little research and validated what I just described.

So, in the future, please don’t drop my name unless you have the correct information.

 

 

[David G. Healy]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

I wasn’t fooled at all. That is your mis-characterization of what I said after I ran the “shadow contrast and tonal curve” filters and stated “It looks like a woman to me.”

I did not, nor have I ever declared it was a woman. Big difference.

There were two frames in which the filter was applied one was more blurry than the other.
The more blurred frame(after applying the filter) was the one in which I made the comment about looking like a woman.
The other frame (also with the filter applied) was the one that Duncan enlarged, which is the one you are referring to and I have never said that frame looked like a woman regardless of whether they depicted the same person.

This is the same crap I went through with others and previously had to correct them.

You agreed with me that it looked like a woman’s face because the Darnell frames had not yet been discovered by Robin Unger and there was nothing else to compare the Wiegman frames to as they were the best quality frames available at the time.

If anybody wants confirmation to what I have stated above ask John Iacoletti (I believe he is still a forum member here) as we went through the same BS on Duncan’s forum. John did a little research and validated what I just described.

So, in the future, please don’t drop my name unless you have the correct information.

 

image deleted -dh

 

pretty much what I thought, thanks Chris.