Jump to content
The Education Forum

PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD


Guest Duncan MacRae

Recommended Posts

I've always felt the elbow positioning dictated someone holding a camera. Robin made me question that original thought with the introduction of a coffee cup.

This gif is not quite the exact body orientation, but it's fairly close.

A camera it is. imo

Steps2.gif

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've always felt the elbow positioning dictated someone holding a camera. Robin made me question that original thought with the introduction of a coffee cup.

This gif is not quite the exact body orientation, but it's fairly close.

A camera it is. imo

Steps2.gif

Brilliant post, Chris! Not only did you prove your point, but you helped me figure out what exactly PM is doing with his arms as he raises the object.

There's a good reason why PM's right arm rises noticeably, but his left arm not so much. I'll explain. (The following looks wordy... but trust me, it is very simple.)

Let's call the object a camera for a moment. (Because I think you are right, that it's a camera.) I can see in the animated GIF below that PM is doing the following. (This is important, so follow along.)

  • He is initially holding the camera at chest height. HOWEVER, the camera is not located directly in line with the center of his body. No, it is actually located a couple inches to his right. This explains how his right elbow can be (and is) lower than his left elbow.

  • He lifts the camera to his face. His WHOLE right arm goes straight up. (In other words, both his right hand and his right elbow rise the same distance, and the angle of his forearm remains constant.)

  • However, as he lifts the camera, it moves a couple inches to his left so that it ends up in line with the center of his body. In other words, the camera is lined up with his face.

  • Now, here's the important part that explains why his left arm seems not to rise much. It's because his left elbow stays FIXED in place, and acts as a pivot. His left forearm rotates clockwise on that pivot (from our point of view). This rotation lifts the camera to face level and pulls it to his left that couple of inches. (The left hand and right hand follow each other precisely because they are both holding the camera.)

    The main point here is that PM's right arm lifts, whereas his left arm swivels or rotates. And since his whole right arm is lifted, it's easy to make that out in the GIF. However, his left arm appears not to be moving much. That's because much of it isn't! Remember, his left elbow doesn't move at all. (It's the pivot.) But the left hand does.

If you zoom into the animated GIF, you will see that what I have described here is true. (With my browser, I zoom in by holding down the CTRL key and hitting the + key several times.) And if you hold a camera (or pretend one) and follow what I describe here, you will see for yourself that what I have describes is consistent with the GIF.

PM is clearly holding a camera. We see him possibly taking a shot in the animated GIF.

Steps_1.gif

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. I just took another close look at the animated GIF, and I still believe that PM is doing what I described. However, I believe he is also doing one other thing. Upon raising the camera, he moves his left hand to the bottom of the camera. (Just like the little camera guy Chris superimposed on the photo.)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Andrej. But I'm pretty sure your off on the wrong track.

Sorry Bart.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy wrote:

"But what part of a movie camera would be bright? A light, as Tom suggests? Did movie cameras back then even have a light? If so, how were they powered? This was back in the days when a flash bulb could be used just once. How could a camera light remain lit for an extended period? It seems that it would require a large battery."

I don't have any links for you Sandy, but I looked at this many months ago and found a plethora of 1960 vintage movie camera light attachments - some plug-in, and some battery powered.

Yeah, I found some on eBay. Here's one with a pistol grip and light:

Yashica_Super40_a.jpg

The problem with this is that the light is too far above the hand. So is the lens. It doesn't fit what we see in the videos.

btw,

This is the photo I used in the preceeding gif. He is holding the movie camera with a pistol grip.

Camera.png

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy wrote:

"But what part of a movie camera would be bright? A light, as Tom suggests? Did movie cameras back then even have a light? If so, how were they powered? This was back in the days when a flash bulb could be used just once. How could a camera light remain lit for an extended period? It seems that it would require a large battery."

I don't have any links for you Sandy, but I looked at this many months ago and found a plethora of 1960 vintage movie camera light attachments - some plug-in, and some battery powered.

Yeah, I found some on eBay. Here's one with a pistol grip and light:

Yashica_Super40_a.jpg

The problem with this is that the light is too far above the hand. So is the lens. It doesn't fit what we see in the videos.

btw,

This is the photo I used in the preceeding gif. He is holding the movie camera with a pistol grip.

Camera.png

Wow... I thought for sure you must have modified the little guy at least a little to get his arm positions to match those of PM.

Is this how a right-handed person would have held such a camera?

Link to post
Share on other sites

85e9917b17be9a656beeb1148caa8a84.jpg

Twin Lens Reflex camera. When the viewfinder is open, available light travels through the upper lens, reflects off of a 45° mirror and is seen by a person looking downwards into the viewfinder. Light also travels the opposite direction from the viewfinder side and is seen as a bright upper lens above.

While the traditional method of using this camera is by holding it at waist level and looking down into the viewfinder, this is difficult to do with moving objects or in a crowd. Many photographers held TLR cameras up to eye level and simply sighted along the side of the camera in these situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it.

The elbows are an even better match with the camera. imo

Camera.jpg

Interesting photo, Chris. His right eye appears to be closed, and his left eye is behind the viewfinder hood. Is it possible there was an opening in the hood he was looking through with his left eye?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we get to the point when both sides will fiercely defend their truth (bottle or camera) whilst the images just do not have the capacity to prove or disprove any of the two possibilities. I would still advocate the bottle, although I appreciate the arguments in support of the camera, because I can see the bright spot only reaching to about chin or mouth level, never the eye level. Chris'ses overlay may not be accurate as Prayer Man does not show the same arm angle as the overlay. The overlay person holding the camera has his right forearm in about 60 degrees angle relative to the plane crossing the western wall, whilst Prayer Man's forearm gives an angle of about 45 degrees. This is a substantial difference, one that decides. I am not sure how the image supports the view that the left had also held the camera if the right forearmarm swung but not the left forearm, and there are no real details in the image. The very slight displacement of the left hand upwards may have been due to an non-volitional adjustment of the position of the left forearm whilst the right arm was lifting. I am also not so much fond of the camera explanation as such a large and reflective object would likely be seen in Darnell's still, however, it is not. This camera-bottle dispute can continue ad infinitum as the images appear to contain enough ambiguities.

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it.

The elbows are an even better match with the camera. imo

Camera.jpg

Interesting photo, Chris. His right eye appears to be closed, and his left eye is behind the viewfinder hood. Is it possible there was an opening in the hood he was looking through with his left eye?

Robert, if Prayer Man would hold a camera as the man on this picture, his left arm would have to move in parallel with his right arm, and the left hand would reach even slightly above the right hand. I am not sure that this picture would be an accurate representation of Prayer Man's gestures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

85e9917b17be9a656beeb1148caa8a84.jpg

Twin Lens Reflex camera. When the viewfinder is open, available light travels through the upper lens, reflects off of a 45° mirror and is seen by a person looking downwards into the viewfinder. Light also travels the opposite direction from the viewfinder side and is seen as a bright upper lens above.

While the traditional method of using this camera is by holding it at waist level and looking down into the viewfinder, this is difficult to do with moving objects or in a crowd. Many photographers held TLR cameras up to eye level and simply sighted along the side of the camera in these situations.

At first I thought the bright area of the lens is too small to be the bright thing we see in PM's hands. But then I realized that the camera, not being in perfect focus, enlarged the bright spot.

This particular camera design could help explain why PM's left hand doesn't have to rise much to put the camera at the correct level. What I imagine is that PM holds the camera sideways (horizontally) when he has it at chest level, then rotates it to its correct (vertical) orientation as he raises it to his eye. Because of the rotation, and the oblong shape, he doesn't need to raise his left hand much to bring the camera to eye level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some camera.....

2913737.jpg

Why not?

Okay, here's the camera at the angle PM is presumably holding it:

post-7237-0-78864300-1463136111_thumb.jpg

The same camera as captured on film (i.e. unfocused and with poor lighting). And then processed to match Bart's processing:

Now, place the processed camera on Bart's processed photo:

And voila... the bright spot from the camera matches the bright spot on Bart's photo.

Yeah, some camera.....

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...