Prayer Man is a Man

[Andrej Stancak]

There is one more similarity between Robert Oswald and Prayer Man which stroke my eye when searching for Robert's pictures. Do you see any similarities in body postures of the two figures?  In both men, the body weight rests on the right foot, the left foot is slightly forward and bent in the knee joint, the shoulder line is tilted slightly toward the right as is the head.

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

The reddish shirt, CE151, is the key to unraveling Prayer Man’s identity.

Lee Oswald wore a reddish CE151 in the morning hours of that fateful Friday, November 22, 1963. When I first saw the coloured version of CE151, obtained by Pat Speer in 2016 and published in his ebook on patspeer.com (Chapter 4b), I was very pleased because here I had a shirt with a correct colour which I could use to accurately model Oswald’s mannequin. I took a patch of the coloured shirt and used it as a texture in the 3D model of Lee Oswald. I noticed the uneven grey shading of Prayer Man’s shirt and decided to also model the dark spots which obviously were related to Lee Oswald’s daily job of lifting cardboard boxes. I then overlaid the 3D mannequin model over Prayer Man – and to my disappointment, I saw quite a poor match between dark and light spots, especially in the upper chest.

A few weeks ago, I decided to look at the dark spots again using the old CE151 as published in vol. 16 of Warren Commission Hearings, p. 515. The picture is a bit noisy, yet after a minor change in brightness, the background cleared and the differences between the dark and light spots became well visible. To my amazement, the pattern of the dark and light spots was different in the two photographs, the CE151 as published in Warren Commission Hearings and the one sent by NARA in 2016.

The figure below is a composite of the two shirts CE151 from the Warren Commission Hearings (left) and the 2016 photograph (right). The middle panel is the most important one. It shows the two shirts with the CE151-2016 converted into greyscale and equalised with the CE151-WC. The grid of blue lines allows for a comparison of individual sectors which correspond in both shirts. The horizontal lines cross the buttons, and the vertical lines the middle of the shirt, the button on the breast pocket and a perforation on the right side of the shirt.

 

Looking at the two shirts in the middle panel, you may see that the prevailing dark tone in CE151-WC  is on the upper chest, especially on the right-hand side, and then on the bottom of the front tails. In contrast, the dark spots in CE151-2016 are broader, especially in sector b5 (lower panel) and the clear parts on both sides of the lower trunk about the waist are poorly expressed. The CE151-2016 has dark spots in the middle (right) and lower (left) parts. The most blatant difference, however, is in sector b2 below the right clavicle – this region is clear in CE151-2016 but dark in CE151-WC. Another obvious difference is in the right lower front tail close to the midline (sector b7). Again, CE151-WC has it very dark while the same spot in CE151-2016 shines.

I find the sector b7 (the bottom front right tail) in the original CE151-2016 too light compared to CE151-WC.

The figure below shows a side-by-side comparison of CE151-WC and Prayer Man's shirt. The lower panel highlights the spots that are either dark or light in both shirts. The top panel gives an unobstructed view of the shirts for everyone's to make a comparison. Of course, the shirts are folded differently, however, the right and middle side of the shirt appears to be visible in both pictures.

 

It is everyone’s right and responsibility to make a judgment: are the similarities in the patterns of light and dark tones in both shirts present, and can those spots occur at similar places just by chance?

It may not be possible to receive a direct confirmation of Prayer Man’s identity from one living witness, and what remains is to build the case on circumstantial evidence. This is the reason for clarifying every single and minute aspect of Prayer Man figure and to determine whether a particular feature would be compatible with Lee Oswald at all, and what probability would there be that a feature seen in Prayer Man would occur in Lee Oswald just by chance. Whatever feature explored so far was fully compatible with Lee Oswald's features. 

If the distribution of the dark, dirty spots on CE151 matches that in Prayer Man’s shirt, it would be hard to deny that Lee Oswald was out, in the doorway just after the shooting and could not be the assassin.

I have sent a request to NARA to send me for a fee the photograph of CE151 as published in Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 16, and I very much hope that it would be possible. However, we need also a better copy of Darnell as the questions posed here could be answered with greater certainty if both photographs are of high quality. How can we obtain one single frame of Darnell from the 6th Floor Museum?

In the coming weeks and months, I will refocus on reviving Tom Wilson’s image analysis method and will subject the CE151-WC, CE151-2016 and Prayer Man in the Darnell still to this type of analysis because it offers the capacity to visualise layers and anomalies in materials. 

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2019 by Andrej Stancak

[Chris Davidson]

On 5/23/2019 at 11:27 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris:

I reckon that your 5'3'' and my 5'2 4/8 for the height of the top of Prayer Man's head above the top landing are pretty close estimates, aren't they?  

I would like to turn your attention to the problem of body proportions which your excellent math may have not taken into account yet. It refers to the problem of how close Prayer Man's right elbow was relative to the head of the person on the second step. Of course, this man was some 3-4 steps away from Prayer Man but what matters are the 2D projections of his and Prayer Man's figures. I get the exact location of the right elbow relative to that man's head only if Prayer Man stands with his right foot on the second step, but not if Prayer Man is a short person 5' 2'' 4/8 (or your 5'3'', it does not matter in this case). A man 5'2'' or 5'3'' standing on the top landing will not have his arms at the same height as a man reaching with his head to the same height but standing one step below. I have explained this detail in my yesterday post, the one with 5-6 images. This means, that his right elbow of the short Prayer Man standing on the top landing will be too far from the man's head due to the combination of three factors: 1. The short Prayer Man is farther away from that man compared to the tall Prayer Man, 2. The arms of the short Prayer Man will also be 2 inches higher compared to the tall Prayer Man even if their heads reach the same heights, 3. A short person will also have shorter arms than a tall person, which moves the right elbow further from the man on the lower step. I showed an example with Mrs. Stanton in my previous post who was set to 5'5'' (this is because some people were adamant that Mrs. Stanton was 5'5'' last year and only changed their mind after seeing that that's too much and simply started to claim that she was 5'4''). You can see the big gap between Mrs. Stanton's mannequin and the location of Prayer Man's elbow.

I hope you find my explanation for my preferred Prayer Man's posture with one foot on a lower step reasonable.

Late edit: Chris, would you agree that a person 5'2 1/2'' or 5'3'' would hardly be a woman?

 

 

 

I'll reserve my comments for now.

Added on Edit: REMOVED GIF

Edited May 31, 2019 by Chris Davidson

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

On 5/23/2019 at 12:27 PM, Andrej Stancak said:

Late edit: Chris, would you agree that a person 5'2 1/2'' or 5'3'' would hardly be a woman?

I'll reserve my comments for now.

In the meantime....
 

Andrej,

You may want to double-check the sentence you added, calling it a "Late edit."  In my neck of the woods, your asking:

Chris, would you agree that a person 5'2 1/2'' or 5'3'' would hardly be a woman?

would be roughly equivalent to asking:

Chris, would you agree that a person 5'2 1/2'' or 5'3'' almost can't be a woman?  (Therefore it must be a man.)

I  think that Chris along with nearly every other American would disagree with you on that. Maybe you meant to say "man," not "woman." Or maybe you meant to say "likely, not "hardly."

 

P.S. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that people in my neck of the woods use the phrase "would hardly be" in a way opposite the rest of America.

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Sandy Larsen

[Andrej Stancak]

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In the meantime....
 

Andrej,

You may want to double-check the sentence you added, calling it a "Late edit."  In my neck of the woods, your asking:

Chris, would you agree that a person 5'2 1/2'' or 5'3'' would hardly be a woman?

would be roughly equivalent to asking:

Chris, would you agree that a person 5'2 1/2'' or 5'3'' almost can't be a woman?  (Therefore it must be a man.)

I  think that Chris along with nearly every other American would disagree with you on that. "Maybe you meant to say "man," not "woman."

 

P.S. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that people in my neck of the woods use the phrase "would hardly be" in a way opposite the rest of America.

 

Sandy:

thanks for your careful reading and the correction. I will check that post and change my text accordingly. Of course, I meant "man" for 5'2'' - 5'3'', not a woman, and 5'9'' for a man.

[Andrej Stancak]

7 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

I'll reserve my comments for now.

Welcome back, Chris. I guess I can now explain the shadow conundrum better, however, I need to take some pictures and also correct the positions of both arms (hands) in my last model. This may take a few days.

[Chris Davidson]

Used in previous gif.

My wife is 5'10" tall without shoes.

She is 6' tall with those shoes on.

All steps rise 7 inches.

[Chris Davidson]

PLEASE DISREGARD THE GIFS I SUPPLIED.

THE STEPS ARE MISALIGNED BY ONE WITH DARNELL.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

 

 

 

[John Butler]

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 10:12 PM, Chris Davidson said:

PLEASE DISREGARD THE GIFS I SUPPLIED.

THE STEPS ARE MISALIGNED BY ONE WITH DARNELL.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

 

 

 

Davidson,

You seem to be losing focus and doing a lot of sloppy .gifs lately.  I recommend taking a vacation from which you can come back refreshed and clean up the deceptive .gifs you have been posting lately.

[Chris Davidson]

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

Davidson,

You seem to be losing focus and doing a lot of sloppy .gifs lately.  I recommend taking a vacation from which you can come back refreshed and clean up the deceptive .gifs you have been posting lately.

Losing focus, No

Realized a mistake and admitted it, Yes.

Your life's perspective for me is about as valuable as the perspective you use to maneuver through Dealy Plaza via the extant films.

Worthless.

Have you figured out where the signs are Butler?

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/30/2019 at 8:12 PM, Chris Davidson said:

PLEASE DISREGARD THE GIFS I SUPPLIED.

THE STEPS ARE MISALIGNED BY ONE WITH DARNELL.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

 

Chris,

If we pretend your wife is up (or down) by one step, will that make your gifs valid? If so, then we can continue to study them.

One other question... you say your wife is 5' 10" and 6' without and with shoes. Are those measurement taken at the top of her head or the top of her hat?  (Or is the hat pulled down tight on her head?)

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by Sandy Larsen

[Andrej Stancak]

We are trying to understand details which are buried in an old, blurry photograph. It is easy to go astray and there is no shame in doing so. 

[Michael Clark]

8 hours ago, John Butler said:

Davidson,

You seem to be losing focus and doing a lot of sloppy .gifs lately.  I recommend taking a vacation from which you can come back refreshed and clean up the deceptive .gifs you have been posting lately.

John,

Are you open to suggestions about what we think you should, or more importantly, should not be doing with your time? Are you open to suggestions as to where you should go to, you know, “take a vacation”?

[John Butler]

19 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

John,

Are you open to suggestions about what we think you should, or more importantly, should not be doing with your time? Are you open to suggestions as to where you should go to, you know, “take a vacation”?

Is this the return of the old Michael Clark I first saw on the forum?

[Andrej Stancak]

This is a composite picture showing in the upper panel the progression in the appearance of bright tones in Prayer Man's figure. The first picture from the left in the upper row reveals that the brightest part in Prayer Man's figure was the back of his right hand. The fleshy part of the forearm close to the elbow joint follows, and the region which I believe would be the left knee or a lateral aspect of the left thigh is the next (the third picture from the left). The left hand only appears when the face is visible; however, it is possible that the left hand is in the shadow cast by the right hand/forearm, so it may still be in front of the chest.

 

In the lower panel, the three spots which pop up first are overlaid onto Prayer Man's figure. The CE151 is also shown because as less bright tones in Prayer Man's figure are picking up, there are inexplicable holes on Prayer Man's shirt. The part around the Prayer Man's abdomen should never be dark if the shirt was of even colour, however, it is not. There are dark areas which are sunk into the shirt, and those darker spots correspond with the dark spots on CE151-WC.