Jump to content
The Education Forum

PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD


Guest Duncan MacRae

Recommended Posts

Sandy, really....

There is no outline of a camera anywhere visible in any of the pix by Wiegman and until there are better scans available you are chasing a ghost. The shot I posted is the best that is around and it shows nada besides a huge reflection.

And besides, and this was already discussed at ROKC months ago btw,, the standing point of Oswald and his view is obstructed by people in front of him, he would barely see anything of the motorcade let alone take a decent pic of it.

I have shot with this type of camera, I used to own one to be precise. Shooting a moving object with it is an absolute bitch, if he was using one of those cameras he would not be looking into the viewfinder from above as this camera required but looking through a small hole at the back of the viewfinder and flipping the front of that view finder up. That so called hole at the back is about as big as half a postage stamp. Shooting a moving object using that method is utter ballony. Sure you can get an image but it won't amount to much.

See the square hole at the back of the viewfinder. Knock yourself out trying to capture an image with that!

1971-Yashica-Mat-124-G-3.jpg

And until you have better scans there is nothing to substantiate this camera 'story', the bottle makes ten times more sense especially when it ends up at his feet along with the lunch sack for a few hours after the deed.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

It's a camera...he's taking photos...


Sometimes common sense has to prevail. Why in the world would this person be taking photos or shooting film? The motorcade has long since passed by. The VIPs are long since past him. If he's slightly back into the main entrance alcove, who in the world is he filming or shooting at that point?


You have to ask yourself - in a common sense, real-world approach - if this is Oswald (and despite what Gilbride said in his earlier post I do believe it's a possibility that it is him) - why would he be taking photos and of who?


And where's the evidence that Oswald (if it's him) had a camera that day or even brought one into work? There's no evidence that he had a camera with him that day and the only camera they knew of that belonged to him was the Minox but that was supposedly found at Payne's house. Now we're expected to believe that just because in two frames of a motion picture film he's standing up there with a still or motion picture camera filming the crowd long after the VIPs have gone down the street?


It's starting to sound again like a "Jackie/Secret Service agent/shiny object/umbrella dart" theory again. I think often times in this case, the simplest approach makes the most sense. And I say this as a 100% CT believer.


---



Sandy and others...


I'm not trying to upset anyone here, but please be careful with this kind of stuff. I say this because this is an open forum. When people who may want to learn more about this now 52-year-old case and they stumble across it via Google, they're also going to stumble across such sites as John McAdams's site who ridicules people like us and copies and pastes directly from the Warren Report with no real analysis. If there's one thing to be said about those people, they're consistent in the way they present their side of the story. Therefore, it's very easy to persuade newbies that Oswald did it, case closed.


But meanwhile, when they come here there are some great posts here. But when someone starts saying "he's holding a camera" and then a blow up of the frame shows a single white dot, it's really starting to make the CT community look like a bunch of kooks (like the UFO/fake moon landing believers). It really takes away from all of the wonderful work that people such as Mark Lane (RIP) and others have done.

Edited by Michael Walton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy, really....

There is no outline of a camera anywhere visible in any of the pix by Wiegman and until there are better scans available you are chasing a ghost. The shot I posted is the best that is around and it shows nada besides a huge reflection.

The photo shows nada, and you're saying it's a bottle of coke? Pot, kettle, black... whatever.

And besides, and this was already discussed at ROKC months ago btw,, the standing point of Oswald and his view is obstructed by people in front of him, he would barely see anything of the motorcade let alone take a decent pic of it.

If PM's view was obstructed, how is it that videos made from the motorcade clearly showed him? His view wasn't obstructed.

I have shot with this type of camera, I used to own one to be precise. Shooting a moving object with it is an absolute bitch, if he was using one of those cameras he would not be looking into the viewfinder from above as this camera required but looking through a small hole at the back of the viewfinder and flipping the front of that view finder up. That so called hole at the back is about as big as half a postage stamp. Shooting a moving object using that method is utter ballony. Sure you can get an image but it won't amount to much.

See the square hole at the back of the viewfinder. Knock yourself out trying to capture an image with that!

1971-Yashica-Mat-124-G-3.jpg

And until you have better scans there is nothing to substantiate this camera 'story', the bottle makes ten times more sense especially when it ends up at his feet along with the lunch sack for a few hours after the deed.

PM held and drank his coke with two hands? I don't think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a camera...he's taking photos...
Sometimes common sense has to prevail. Why in the world would this person be taking photos or shooting film? The motorcade has long since passed by.
Well obviously PM had already taken his photo's and was finished by the time we see him in the films. Common sense dictates that, you know.
The VIPs are long since past him. If he's slightly back into the main entrance alcove, who in the world is he filming or shooting at that point?
Nobody as far as I know. Oh, he might have seen something that caught his interest after the dignitaries had passed. He might have taken a shot or two at that time.
You have to ask yourself - in a common sense, real-world approach - if this is Oswald (and despite what Gilbride said in his earlier post I do believe it's a possibility that it is him) - why would he be taking photos and of who?
And where's the evidence that Oswald (if it's him) had a camera that day or even brought one into work? There's no evidence that he had a camera with him that day and the only camera they knew of that belonged to him was the Minox...
And I'm supposed to take the FBI's and WC's word for that?
The evidence for the camera is the shiny thing PM is holding with two hands and raising to his face with two hands. What other things do people do that with? I can think of only two things... a full coffee mug or a camera.
BTW, even if I did believe the FBI and WC about Oswald's belongings, what does that have to do with Prayer Man? I never said Oswald was PM. (Though he might be.)
...but that was supposedly found at Payne's house. Now we're expected to believe that just because in two frames of a motion picture film he's standing up there with a still or motion picture camera filming the crowd long after the VIPs have gone down the street?
It's starting to sound again like a "Jackie/Secret Service agent/shiny object/umbrella dart" theory again. I think often times in this case, the simplest approach makes the most sense. And I say this as a 100% CT believer.
---
Sandy and others...
I'm not trying to upset anyone here, but please be careful with this kind of stuff. I say this because this is an open forum. When people who may want to learn more about this now 52-year-old case and they stumble across it via Google, they're also going to stumble across such sites as John McAdams's site who ridicules people like us and copies and pastes directly from the Warren Report with no real analysis. If there's one thing to be said about those people, they're consistent in the way they present their side of the story. Therefore, it's very easy to persuade newbies that Oswald did it, case closed.
But meanwhile, when they come here there are some great posts here. But when someone starts saying "he's holding a camera" and then a blow up of the frame shows a single white dot,
Michael, the point of posting my highly-processed dot was to show Bart the silliness of his highly processed dot.
it's really starting to make the CT community look like a bunch of kooks (like the UFO/fake moon landing believers). It really takes away from all of the wonderful work that people such as Mark Lane (RIP) and others have done.
Just because you disagree with or don't see the value in someone else's work, hypotheses, theories, or conclusions doesn't give you the right to say on the forum that they make the CT community look like a bunch of kooks. Or that it takes away from the work of others. And frankly I am offended by your saying these things. As well as for your patronizing attitude when you try to school me on the dangers of posting things you consider silly. They may look silly to you, but that doesn't make them so.
Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice set of denials Sandy,

Take a look at the shot below, the 'wall' of people at that distance.

Wiegman stood in the car as he was about to jump out.

You wish to treat both points of view as equal? A camera man who has no obstructed view aiming up, compared to someone who might (!) hold a camera and has an obstructed view?

Imagine the seated people in the car, how much would Oswald see through his viewfinder of these people in that car with that 'wall' and distance between him?

oswald%20and%20lovelady%20in%20the%20sam

You wish to tell me that those close ups do not resemble a bottle and a lunch sack? Yet you can see a camera......that by itself is an extraordinary belief, which I do not subscribe to.

Show me the picture where Oswald is holding the object with both hands, as what I am looking at it is only his right hand.

IEJmpY.gif

It ends for me here discussing this any further, I have presented my points clearly enough. . Good luck!

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.

It is quite possible the TLR camera in PM's hands did not have the "peekaboo" viewfinder the camera above was equipped with. Most of them did not have this feature, requiring the photographer to take photos in this manner by sighting over the side of the camera. This would, of course, place PM's arms in a different location than the photographer above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something to think about. If PM was holding a Coke bottle, it would be held vertically in front of him. When he raised it to drink, it would be held horizontally. Wouldn't we see a rather longish glowing reflection when it was vertical, and a roundish glowing reflection, when we were looking only at the round base of the Coke bottle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something to think about. If PM was holding a Coke bottle, it would be held vertically in front of him. When he raised it to drink, it would be held horizontally. Wouldn't we see a rather longish glowing reflection when it was vertical, and a roundish glowing reflection, when we were looking only at the round base of the Coke bottle?

Robert, this is a good point. It depends on the volume of the fluid remaining in the bottle. If there was some half or third of volume remaining, the bottle could have been tilted, whilst in the position in front of Prayer Man's chest, just enough to expose the bottom of the bottle to the sun light.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something to think about. If PM was holding a Coke bottle, it would be held vertically in front of him. When he raised it to drink, it would be held horizontally. Wouldn't we see a rather longish glowing reflection when it was vertical, and a roundish glowing reflection, when we were looking only at the round base of the Coke bottle?

Robert, this is a good point. It depends on the volume of the fluid remaining in the bottle. If there was some half or third of volume remaining, the bottle could have been tilted, whilst in the position in front of Prayer Man's chest, just enough to expose the bottom of the bottle to the sun light.

Seriously, Andrej? Do you hold a bottle of Coke tilted on its side when it's out in front of you?

1*jdkRWwtg9NJP8iJgkDUnyg.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob from a 5th or 6th? generation pic this is mega hard to ascertain, all I can say is that the bottom will amplify the sunlight due to the thickness of the glass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice set of denials Sandy,

Take a look at the shot below, the 'wall' of people at that distance.

Wiegman stood in the car as he was about to jump out.

You wish to treat both points of view as equal? A camera man who has no obstructed view aiming up, compared to someone who might (!) hold a camera and has an obstructed view?

Every picture I've seen indicates that PM had an unobstructed view of those riding in the cars. He was standing several feet above the crowd. Yet even the tallest in the crowd would be only a foot or two higher than those sitting in a car.

Even so, this is a moot point. (moot = of little significance) PM's intention may have been to take pictures if he could, only to learn later that it was hard for him to get a clear shot.

(I clarified the meaning of "moot" because to some the word means "debatable" and to others it means "of little or no significance.")

Imagine the seated people in the car, how much would Oswald see through his viewfinder of these people in that car with that 'wall' and distance between him?

oswald%20and%20lovelady%20in%20the%20sam

You wish to tell me that those close ups do not resemble a bottle and a lunch sack? Yet you can see a camera......that by itself is an extraordinary belief, which I do not subscribe to.

Just to be clear, I never said that those objects do not resemble a bottle and lunch sack.

I also never said the object in PM's hands looks like a camera. What I did say is that the way PM is handling the object is consistent with the way a camera is handled.

Show me the picture where Oswald is holding the object with both hands, as what I am looking at it is only his right hand.

PM appears to be holding the object at chest level with both hands. When the object is at face level, I'm not certain whether he is still holding it with his left or not. But it appears that he doesn't drop his left hand.

You can see PM holding the object with two hands in the animated GIF below, when the inset picture on top appears.

Steps_1.gif

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